Can Someone Identify This Animal?

A friend of mine went on a trek through Siberia recently and took a picture of something than none of us have been able to identify. It looks like some type of bird but the teeth threw us off a bit.

Any ideas?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Weller
A friend of mine went on a trek through Siberia recently and took a picture of something than none of us have been able to identify. It looks like some type of bird but the teeth threw us off a bit.

Any ideas?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i have a feeling i know but im not saying till im positive because i know it is not a bird because of the ears and plus it has fingers it also looks like it may hooves so im looking into it.

A mummified Dog if you look closly you can see the frount legs pointing backwords this could be because of rigamortis when it first set in .
again look at the frount legs what you take as Wings you can accutly see the toes and feet. And the head shap looks like a dog notice the canine teeth.

Looks somewhat like a Meerkat type animal to me. Similar to a prarie dog. The closest thing to a pic I could find was here: www.eridia.com... Scroll down and you'll see the outline of the meetkat. Size looks about right, but I didn't thinik they were commonly found in Siberia.

Good guesses, I'm leaning towards a dog at this point, the front legs just threw me off.

its not a dog, but most likely a meerkat which they dont have in siberia. are you sure it was taken in siberia? if so i think i have another idea.

Originally posted by phantompatriot
its not a dog, but most likely a meerkat which they dont have in siberia. are you sure it was taken in siberia? if so i think i have another idea.

Yes, I'm positive it was in Siberia, can't remember the exact location though.

Ummmmmmmmm, you better look in the deep past for answers to this one. Im thinking that thing is OLD, REAL OLD.

I dont think meerkats get that big. That thing stands around 3 1/2 feet tall.



[edit on 7-9-2004 by All Seeing Eye]

i recognize those ears but im not sure where from i dont think its a tiger but those ears remind me of something ive seen before

My guess:

Sibirian weasel (Mustela siberica).

Body without tail: Male: 28-39 cm , Female: 25-30,5 cm

BTW, I think I can also spot a tail on that picture of yours.

Unfortunately I cannot find any picture of a Sibirian Weasel right now.

Thing is, in parts of Syberia, you can find animal carcases that are a few 1000's of years old and well preserved(with meat seemingly still on them)

This could be one of those occurences.

Not to mention there are some thought to be extinct animals still living in that desolate freezing wasteland.

Its primarely looks like a catlike creature to me, the fur on its rear paw shows its a snow animal(white fur). The front feet with rather well developed handlike features would suggest something that looks like a weasel but with much longer hindlegs.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
My guess:

Sibirian weasel (Mustela siberica).

Body without tail: Male: 28-39 cm , Female: 25-30,5 cm

BTW, I think I can also spot a tail on that picture of yours.

Unfortunately I cannot find any picture of a Sibirian Weasel right now.

Hmmm...interesting. I'm going to try and find a picture as well. Thanks for the clue.

Originally posted by thematrix
Thing is, in parts of Syberia, you can find animal carcases that are a few 1000's of years old and well preserved(with meat seemingly still on them)

This could be one of those occurences.

Not to mention there are some thought to be extinct animals still living in that desolate freezing wasteland.

Its primarely looks like a catlike creature to me, the fur on its rear paw shows its a snow animal(white fur). The front feet with rather well developed handlike features would suggest something that looks like a weasel but with much longer hindlegs.

I've heard things about Siberia like that before, in fact, she showed the picture to many of the locals she ran across and none of them could identify it either.

Definitely canine and most probably fox.
137.222.110.150...

The limbs are not that of something that flies, but rather of a quadruped and a hunter (short "hock".) The spine isn't long enough to be that of a feline or a ferret or weasel (you'd need much shorter legs, and a much longer spine. The tail has dropped off, but you can see some rusty/reddish fur in the picture that's associated with a body part. The fang length isn't that odd for a fox. As to the "fingers", yes, canine paw anatomy is VERY close to that of human hands and feet.

And there's a shoe in the picture, guys, that gives some sense of scale.

You can see the anatomy better here in the drawings (though you may have to download and enlarge them to see the details):
dogtraining.co.uk...

The chest is too frail/fragile to be a wolf and the eye sockets are too large to be the young of a larger canine. And then there's the reddish fur.

Fox.

Originally posted by thematrix
Thing is, in parts of Syberia, you can find animal carcases that are a few 1000's of years old and well preserved(with meat seemingly still on them)

This could be one of those occurences.

Not likely. Those are found buried in the permafrost. This one (as you can see from its position on the ground) never got into the permafrost. It died and its body mummified and decomposed above the ground; not underneath.

Picture of a Siberian Weasel

"rightclick disabled", so link instead of picture here...

The fur look redish,
actually the exact same color as can be seen on your photo and pointed out by Byrd...
I still hold my bet on a Siberian Weasel.
And for the legs, they�re stretched...

Originally posted by Byrd
Definitely canine and most probably fox.
137.222.110.150...

The limbs are not that of something that flies, but rather of a quadruped and a hunter (short "hock".) The spine isn't long enough to be that of a feline or a ferret or weasel (you'd need much shorter legs, and a much longer spine. The tail has dropped off, but you can see some rusty/reddish fur in the picture that's associated with a body part. The fang length isn't that odd for a fox. As to the "fingers", yes, canine paw anatomy is VERY close to that of human hands and feet.

And there's a shoe in the picture, guys, that gives some sense of scale.

You can see the anatomy better here in the drawings (though you may have to download and enlarge them to see the details):
dogtraining.co.uk...

The chest is too frail/fragile to be a wolf and the eye sockets are too large to be the young of a larger canine. And then there's the reddish fur.

Fox.

I was thrown off by the positioning of the front legs I guess. After seeing the picture of the Siberian Weasel that Hellmutt posted it seemed pretty obvious that the legs and general bone structure didn't match very well.

At this point I'm going to agree with you unless someone comes out of the blue with better evidence to the contrary. Still makes me wonder how the front legs got that way though.

Thanks for your response, much appreciated.

If this is in Siberia I'd guess it was a Pallas' Cat - sure it's very skinny compared to a live Pallas' Cat, but then a live one isn't dehydrated and bald like this dead one.

It's back feet really appear to be feline, the long tail matches, the front teeth match, the ear position matches too. skinned Pallas Cat this image might give a better idea of how close it looks to your photo. And here is a cat skeleton which closely resembles your mummy photo.

Can't guarantee I'm right, but I think I'm pretty warm in anycase. If it's not a cat, then it's a dog - the tail, the eye socket and the front canines say either cat or dog to me. Did your friend happen to give it quick chew? If it tasted like a #9 then it's definitely a cat.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by CatHerder
Did your friend happen to give it quick chew? If it tasted like a #9 then it's definitely a cat.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by CatHerder]

No, not taste test was performed! But at this point I'm going to settle on a cat despite my previous post.

Thanks for all the feedback folks!

I can�t believe I�m the only one "seeing" the "Mustela sibirica" here...

Bend the legs in position, put meat/fur on the skeleton... and it�s there
That�s what I think anyway.
I can "see" it clear as a day, the tail, the fur on its right foreleg, the shape of its body.
Everything seems to match, except that the backlegs appear to be longer on the skeleton-picture.
But if you skin the "live one" and stretch it�s legs, you might get a match.
I still can�t see why it�s not a "Mustela sibirica".