Thylacoleo alive in Queensland?

[arca]

It looks like the "stripes" are on the front part of the body, near the neck. That would mean the animal is facing to the left. That might rule out thylacine, but not something like Rilla's critter.

[molloch]

I didn't realise the ID of the animal was in any doubt. It is a dog. Much of the "striping" isn't colour on the pelt but just shadowing and skin folds.

[sfrrob]

OK
after playing around with this pic, I am actually convinced this is NOT brindling.


I don't know what the animal is, but you can see that there is a lot of motion blur, if you take that into consideration, I would say these markings ARE very faint but quite distinguishable stripes.



Here are a few different edited pictures to show you what I mean.








What do you make of it? It's very interesting that the stripes are very prominent around the neck and sides of the chest then seem to stop around the middle of the back. I don't know of any animal which has the same markings.
If I were you Ray, I would be setting ALL my trail cameras up in this location and baiting the hell out of the area to get another shot of the animal.

[sfrrob]

Sorry Molloch, but those markings are NOT from skin folds and shadowing. the rear end of the animal has plenty of shadows cast onto it from behind the camera, the markings at the front however are the color of the animals coat.

[molloch]

I disagree, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

Ray, any pics of dogs/dingoes taken at about the same location? I imagine it is something with either dingo or gold lab colouring. In fact, I am fairly sure it is a dingo.

[seth24]

the pictured animal , seems to be in great 'nick' with its coat being very 'sleek' looking, whether that would be due to motion blurriness.from the camera. The time of day the picture was taken(5.47am), could that show up shadows and possibly reflections from the camera. I notice bush in the background, and i presume there is bush behind the camera. would there then be shadows from overhanging branches to which i presume the camera is attached. Would these shadows possibly give a ' striping'effect.
Any footprints left in the area , would give some idea of the animals I.D. ;D

[mingle]

I agree with Chris on this one (sorry Molloch!)...

The markings on the front are on the animal and not caused by shadows.

Having said that, I'm also fairly certain it's a brindled feral/dingo cross...

Mike.

[rayharvey271]

there is wild dogs in this area. i have not any prints lately but a few months ago i got tracks in this area, i put them up dennis said they look a bit like thylacoleo. can put them up again if any one wants to c.

[molloch]

IMHO: The "stripes" follow the chest and reduce over the abdomen, because they are shadowing and skin folding caused by the ribs. The ones on the neck are just skin folds and are pretty standard on most dogs. It looks odd because it is moving, and too close to the camera so that it is outside the camera's focal length.

You can see the classic dingo white underhair pattern on the back of the foreleg. See here:



The dog is in poor condition, the sleekness of the coat is just an artefact of the photo. You can see the ilium poking out of the dog's skin in the right of the photo.

It could be an animal similar to this from Ray's other old thread:

thylacoleo.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=2265&post=14444

[cymatics]

I hate to say it, but as soon as i saw it i thought of a dingo also. I think its either a dingo or a wild dog.

Can you put up some wild dog pics if you have any pretty please Ray?

[rayharvey271]

i put up some wild dogs pics on the weekend.

[cymatics]

Thank you heaps

[rayharvey271]

could not find any photos of wild dogs in the daisyhill area but plenty from about 40 km away

[rayharvey271]

unique colour pattern

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

mean

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

a

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

s

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

c

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

d

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

f

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

g

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

h

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

i like the way you brought out the stripes rob. its most likely a dog maybe . at lest the people of daisyhill are seeing a animal with stripes and with a bit of luck time will tell.

[rayharvey271]

i found a artticle about a big pussy too

Attachments:

[rayharvey271]

put him on steroids and he become a real tiger.

[lurcherman]

Ray said Today at 6:20am:
"at lest the people of daisyhill are seeing a animal with stripes and with a bit of luck time will tell. "

Are the people at daisyhill seeing an animal with stripes at a distance or really close up as in the picture?

[rayharvey271]

i lighten the photo to see if i could see anything, do them two marks look like wounds . rob anyone what do yous think.

Attachments:

[sfrrob]

I couldn't tell ya what they are to be honest, the marks could be anything, it's a shame the image has soo much motion blur and the animal is so close to the trail cam!
Most likely the dark marks are from shadows caused by the dimpling of the muscles in the shoulder and infront of the rear leg. I'd say the white you can see on my "enhanced" pics would be the undercoat, or fine hairs refracting light..... but that is just a wild guess with the quality of the picture being so poor.
I would love to know what animal this is. If it is a dog, the coloration is very pecuiliar as I have NEVER seen a brindle dog, wild or not with evenly spaced stripes on its neck and back, albeit faint and blurry in this image.
I did this quickly to show you what I am talking about, both pics are dodgey but, hopefully you get the idea?


What you should do is: recreate this photo.
Head out to the the exact same location around the same time as the photo was taken and place a large sheet infront of the trail cam as close as you estimate the animal was from the cam - which should be mounted in exactly the same spot, using exactly the same bait box, or what ever is casting the cyclone fence wire shadow on the right hand side of the photo.
This will then show what shadows would have been cast onto this animal and could prove me wrong, or right about the striping on the coat.

[youcantry]

Jun 12, 2012 18:20:37 GMT 10 sfrrob said:

What you should do is: recreate this photo.
Head out to the the exact same location around the same time ... exactly the same bait box, or what ever is casting the cyclone fence wire shadow on the right hand side of the photo.
This will then show what shadows would have been cast onto this animal

Actually, adjust for the difference in sunrise/sunset times. On 22/5/12, Brisbane sunrise time was 06:25. Photo was 8:05, which is 1:40 after sunrise. Today sunrise was 6:36, so test time should be 8:16.

While that's probably near enough to the original photo time, bear this in mind, because if you don't get out there to test this for a month or two, the time difference could be significant.

[youcantry]

Jun 8, 2012 12:32:24 GMT 10 sfrrob said:

I would say these markings ARE very faint but quite distinguishable stripes.

Jun 12, 2012 18:20:37 GMT 10 sfrrob said:

I couldn't tell ya what they are to be honest, the marks could be anything

Got less certain over time?

Starting with your own example of the brindle dog, if I crop the photo to the right place I can find 5 relatively "consistent" (I use the term loosely) stripes. If the trail cam had happened to target that portion of that dog we could be sitting here arguing this animal was striped. I use the term "consistent stripes" loosely because if you make a fair analysis of the mystery animal in question, the "stripes" are not all the same thickness, or darkness; nor do they extend to the same length - either up onto the spine or down to the belly.