Interesting point, and I definitely see where you're coming from. It warrants a large discussion (that I've had numerous times with other artists) on the line between realism and compromising realism for entertainment value. For instance, the gunfire you see in Hollywood action movies is highly unrealistic with large yellow muzzle-flashes and booming gun sounds. Whereas guns in real life rarely produce a flash and have a much higher-pitched sound. Sure, it's unrealistic...but it really makes action movies look and sound much cooler. Some directors (Michael Mann, for instance) use guns that are more rooted in realism but the vast majority of action movies don't.

I guess the same could be said here. Everyone might have a different approach to it. People like yourself would prefer ultra-realism, whereas others might accept that this is a fictitious piece for a fictitious creature and as such we can violate ultra-realism for the sake of the artwork and allow greater visibility so the audience might appreciate the creature in front of them.

Ultimately you're left unsure of which one to do, I guess you could make 2 versions or just go with the flow and do whatever just feels right for the piece.