When I saw this article headline, I knew I was right...they won't let it go.  They want to perpetuate the mystery, latching onto every little term of possible ambiguity such as "possibly" or "most likely" instead of the absolute language most people are used to.  Well folks, in science there aren't any absolutes - no matter what you've been told nothing is 100%.  You can have 99.9999999999999~% but not 100%.

However, people who are used to stark contrasts such as black and white, it is or it isn't sniff out those words utilized to specifically stay away from making absolute claims.  They pounce on them and hold them up as a weapon to support the accusation of great uncertainty.

Sadly in this age of home genetic tests (still having to be sent back to a lab for analysis though), the majority of the populace have no understanding of what is involved let alone a decent grasp of basic genetics itself.  Yet, when it comes to something such as this, people are quick to voice their opinions and claim "mistake", "inaccurate" or sometimes even "fraud" when many don't even know what DNA stands for.

Which is one of the many reasons I am so passionate about scientific literacy as was one of my personal heroes, the late Dr. Carl Sagan.

The results could come back from UC-Davis as being positively identified as a coyote but the same will happen as it has in this instance.  The "mundane" answers will not be accepted.  People will hold on to that mystery that folklore - why?  Because it is much more appealing to have some mystery animal that is linked to a folklore creature than to have a small band of coyotes with a dermatological disease.