The problem with this classification is that it's too simplistic and arbitrary. You used the science-based tag. Well, scientists separate animals more properly by the biomes where they can live, according to their adaptation.
So when you say sea creatures, I ask you: of which environment? Epipelagic? Bathypelagic? Benthic?
Krakens usually die when they surface (some scientists think it has to do more with temperature than pressure). On the other hand, the white death would not withstand the pressure of the abyss.
Similarly, you say land creatures; but I doubt a bear would feel comfortable in the deep Brazilian jungle. Likewise, the Jaguar wouldn't last a few minutes on the polar caps.
If you wish to invent a fictional biome that is alien to us, then we can have something going. Consider animals with thick, stony hooves as an adaptation to walk on floating magma. In the real world, only Homo darwinius awardius does that. But in a fictional world with large volcanic biomes, you could say that you have sea creatures, land creatures, and "fire creatures" that walk on magma and maybe even eat it.
Similarly, if your world has a permanent storm - an aerial Maëlstrom - you could have flying creatures that have evolved to live in it. They would never need to land, not even to nest. Air creatures.
Finally, you may wish to cross the final frontier and have lifeforms that dwell in space - aether creatures!. That is more the domain of sci-fi, as opposed to my previous examples which are more aligned with fantasy.