Seriously – the shape of the half-a-print we can see in the green box looks quite square and similar to the Tasmanian devil.

My question: why only half a print? Was the photographer trying to document the huge dog print (red box) and then someone noticed the half-print in the picture?

On re-reading your post I see that it was thought the top print (green box) is a dog’s while the large one (red) is a mystery animal. The plantar pad in the red box does have a cat-like shape to it, but the digit positions look good for a dog.

Another question: why so muddy? Did the animal bring the mud with it from a nearby creek bed or riverbank? If so, are there not more prints? If not, how was this print made? The red box print looks fresher than the others, but if the red box print was made in wet mud then the other prints should be newer because they’re clearly made when the ground was drier.

All a bit confusing. Need to see more of the context of the prints, and understand more of the weather history.