Nice job, you sent me down a deep rabbit hole of wikipedia and Google, when I should have been helping my wife decorate for Christmas and my sons first birthday (it's like planning a wedding all over again).
As I was reviewing information on all of those dinosaurs and their reconstructions, I was really hit by the magnitude of how we know so little about what these dinosaurs looked like. I should clarify: I grew up a dinosaur nut and always possessed more knowledge and enthusiasm on the subject than the above-average lay person, but I never truly questioned reconstruction efforts. Sure, there were many that I didn't like, and some that I loved Now I'm looking at some of the fossils that show evidence of feathers and quills, and I'm struck by what isn't showing: Is it possible that some of these might have had trunks? Ears? Prehensile lips? Humps like in camels?
*the evidence does not currently support sauropods possessing trunks, fyi. This is just an example to help break our paradigm.
In a 100 million years, a future paleontologist could unearth an elephant and probably have no idea that an elephant had massive ears, or that it had such a long trunk. They may wonder at how such a large herbivore managed to eat, but they'd probably initial suspect that they used their tusks to help somehow. My poorly worded point is that if we actually saw a living dinosaur out and about, we may not immediately recognize it as a dinosaur, based on what we can see from fossils.