Technically, this is possible
A lifelike statue, a stuffed monster, an armor looking like a heavily armored fighter, or a corpse under 5e rules all count as an object, not as a creature.
The spell lists objects that are not resembling any creature, does not list creatures, but makes no explicit statement about the object not being able to resemble a creature. Neither does the list of exclusions.
These creature-lookalikes would not exhibit any movement, and it may be easier to discern that something is not right with them, either granting Advantage to the saving throw to reveal them as an illusion, or allowing observers to recognize that since it is not moving, it is not actually a creature. But on superficial inspection, under time pressure, or with difficult lighting conditions like dim light, it may be difficult for a casual observer to tell the difference.
The objects created by minor illusion have to be static, they cannot move. This means the illusion of a taxidermied creature will for all practical purposes appear identical to the illusion of a creature. Possible differences would be extemely slight, such as the life-likeness of the eyes of the creature. In essence, this interpretation is way to circumvent that the spell does not mention illusions of creatures can be created.
I think if it was the intent of the spell to allow creating illusions of creatures, it would have mentioned them. The use of taxidermies to me smells of hair-splitting to extend the power of the spell. I would not be surprised if a DM ruled that this is against the spirit of the spell, and would limit the allowed use to statues or armors.