Case and Point:  The Cryptid is ALMOST a match for a common coyote, but it is actually a greater percentile for a common terrier and a Saint Bernard.  Does that mean that it is either one of these?  The answer is NO.

The focus is: Can we verify this creature as a new, yet to be identified species? 

Consider these facts:
There was a myth for a thousand years of a HUGE black and white demon beast with red glowing eyes that would rip a man to shreds if he ventured into its lair.  This beast was elusive for a thousand years of tales, until one brave American set out to prove it existed--and he did!!  The BEAST turned out to be the Giant Panda, and the man was none other that President Theodore Roosevelt (Teddy).  So, let's not quickly dismiss the notion of a new species being identified.

Over the last few months, a new area of Vietnam has been opened for Scientific Exploration.  The results to date:  21 new species never seen before.  I pose the question:  How can experts say we know all the mammals with absolute certainty?

It is claimed that the chimpanzee genes have a 98% similarity to human genes, and this is promoted as evidence for the claim that apes are related to humans.  Does this conclude that man is really equivalent to a monkey?  I pose the question:  Does the almost in the DNA sample make the unidentified beast (Chupacabra) equivalent to a coyote?  Almost is not exact.  For further discussion:  The 98% match does not mean exact and is therefore a misnomer.  For example, using the Man and Ape sequence:  This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalization grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee.  There are about one hundred thousand genes and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans.  For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins.