Borneo's "Mystery Animal"

Darren Naish has a very interesting posting about the alleged mystery animal captured on film in central Borneo. A new paper appearing in Mammal Review indicates that the animal is a little-known flying squirrel. First, the paper in question:

'New Bornean carnivore' is most likely a little known flying squirrel
Erik Meijaard, Andrew C. Kitchener and Chris Smeenk
Mammal Review
Volume 36 Issue 4 Page 318 - October 2006

Abstract:

1. We analysed two camera-trap photos of an alleged new species of carnivore from Kalimantan, Borneo, Indonesia.

2. Comparisons of the features seen in the photos with morphological features of 17 similar-looking species from the region suggest that the animal is not a new species of carnivore, as had been widely speculated, but is most likely a rarely seen species of flying squirrel, probably Aeromys thomasi.

3. We advocate continuing adherence to the formalities of species description based on actual specimens and a formal review process. Even informal announcements about possible new species based on photographs or other indirect evidence should adopt a cautionary approach. All the possibilities should be eliminated using any available means, such as comparative morphometrics and assessments of body shape and posture, and coat colour.


Now, this isn't brand new information, as Meijaard suggested it in print for BBC Wildlife Magazine (March 2006), but it should provide an objective appraisal of the animal from professional mammalogists familiar with that region's fauna. (I'm including an image of the BBC Wildlife article here, which shows a photo of the flying squirrel Petaurista.)
From a cryptozoological standpoint, since 2005, the theory that it was a rediscovered civet has been the only one that has really gotten much press. That's unfortunate, as the squirrel theory was brought up on at least one cryptozoology forum. I'd suggest that in similar cases, when a summary review of a given mystery animal is written for the benefit of cryptozoology enthusiasts, all reasonable theories (not just preferred ones) should be given mention, with full recognition that poor imagery shouldn't be considered heavily weighted evidence.