Throwing in 2 bits ...
Mummy - a question was brought up in the Lore forums not too long ago about Mummies, http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=951987. It seems doubtful that you would find mummies in Vvardenfell
Umm, if I go in an ashlander tomb, I see mummies, they are even *labeled* mummies in the base game. It's perfectly conceivable imho that there are old burying practices which create mummies (and which are still upheld by the ashlanders), while the House culture changed its burying practices somewhere along the way. There's still plenty of possibility for mummies in House tombs, which were simply buried before the burying practices were changed.
Wood Sprite: So obviously a retexture of the Hunger, it doesn't seem a like a really unique creature at all. Plus, I can't think of any lore or mention of such critters.
It doesn't have the same stats as the Hunger, so it's a unique creature in my book. Having a unique mesh for every creature would be nice, but not having one is not a reason to delete interesting creatures imho.
Bloodwing: another retexture, it doesn't exactly strike me as an interesting addition to Vvardenfell's wildlife.
Please define what constitutes an "interesting" creature for you (without referring to lore since that would be circular logic). I don't see what makes the Bloodwing less interesting as most other creatures (including many of Bethesda's own creatures).
Imp: Considering how the model is identical to the Gargoyle, I'd suggest scrapping one or the other in favor of having each creature with a unique mesh.
Scrapping creatures is not going to create meshes for them. Actually, keeping them *in* would probably make it much more likely that someone creates a mesh for them since the creature is then more present in the minds of the players (which includes the minds of modelers).
Giant Spider: DO NOT WANT. >:(
That's extremely convincing.
Blazing Scamp: No mention of it in the lore. The retexture isn't particularly stunning, either.
Maybe put some tattoos and runes on its skin.
Scamps *are* fire-based, so they are not in *contradiction* to the lore either.
Silver Saint and Dark Saint: No mention in the Lore for them. At all. I think there are enough daedra variations, that these two wouldn't be missed.
Imho, these two provide much needed variety for Sheogorath's minions. How many are left if you take these two away?
Also, where does the notion come from that Dark Saints do not exist in lore? The Mazken were created by Bethesda in Shivering Isles, as a counterpart to the Golden Saints. Pirateklord was just quicker than Bethesda in adding them.
Actually the Dark Saints are a really good example that deleting creatures to "preserve" lore can easily defeats its own purpose. Piratelord created Dark Saints before Bethesda officially added the Mazken to the lore. By your reasoning, they should have been deleted at that time. Some months later bethesda added them to the lore in Shivering Isles. By your reasoning, *then* it would have been okay (and perhaps even good) to add them. However, it's the same Dark Saints both times. How can adding the same creature to the game be wrong at one time and right suddenly later? It doesn't make sense.
Flesh Dremora: No mention in the Lore. If you do plan on keeping it, I suggest a new mesh. Possibly this 'flesh dremora' is made redundant by the Flesh Atronach.
Another intersting creature that I'd hate to lose.
Anyway, we are unlikely to reach an agreement in that question - so I'll conclude with one last point: It's much easier for users to remove unwanted creatures from a mod than to put desired creatures in. Therefore, if no agreement between the two groups can be reached, the users in total are better served by keeping these creatures in.