That is a distortion of the information listed in the article. There were seven samples. Three matched chickens. Two matched "several species" including chickens (and who knows what else). And two matched creatures that couldn't be much different than chickens. Three samples out of seven matched a bird. Two were apparently inconclusive (or completely inclusive) and two certainly did not match a bird. That does not equal "a large majority" for any category. The fact that four out of seven samples were either inconclusive or pointed to something other than a bird cannot be considered insignificant by anyone not striving to support only one conclusion.
You (Rokke) make good points in rebutal, but I think I gotta go along with "unremarkable".
Bear in mind that not only are these apparently short sequences, but this is a fairly unremarkable structural protein. It performs pretty much the same mechanical function in any creature. It's not likely to be as varied and unique from species to species or taxa to taxa as a protein that has a chemical function and/or that has to mesh into some complex biological pathways or functions.