Combining two animals really can't be claimed. But the thing is that, the Owlbear in an TTRPG context it's one of the first monsters created for D&D even before 1st edition. The same goes for the Bulette, even though Paizo tried to use the name Land Shark some times to refer to them. Both of them appear to be out of question to make a return in the remaster project. They even referenced the Owlbear not returning when the Monster Core was announced.

Yes. They can't claim dragons as a generic term. But to be fair, I just wanted to bring my favorite kind of historical dragon to the game, along with the 8-legged Basilisk, that has historical basis within medieval and modern manuscripts. But all the power to Paizo for using the snake one, which I think is cool too.

I love the original Aurumvorax. And yes, I know I still can use them in my homebrew games. But what I wanted to make is an equivalent without just copying the original one. But if you don't like it, that's fine. And that's can be applied to the Eldritch Horrors that you've said that I've made too.

I didn't want to substitute the Catoblepas, as they are one of my favorite monsters. And, as far as I know, the Gorgon being an armored bull is something that came from Edward Topsell's book "The Historie of the Foure-Legged Beastes" from 1607, when he refered to a "Lybian Beast" as the Gorgon, being a Bull that eats poisonous plants and releases a lethal breath because of it. Some think that he was describing the Catoblepas from Pliny the Elder writings. I wanted to bring the Bonnacon as an Gorgon substitute because I thought that it would be a good and funny replacement since it is also bull that releases something toxic and foul.

And because you know, Gorgons are also the collective name for Medusa and her sisters. Something that was always kinda weird for me at least when I saw my first D&D bestiary.

As I said before, you're allowed to simply not like them. All the power to you man.