Slocum, et al, in their 2005 2nd Edition of "Thematic Mapping and Geographic Visualization", state, "Use of the word map in a title is a statement of the obvious and should be avoided.” To me, the use of the words "map" or “distribution” in the title indicates that the map maker did not take quite enough time to think of a title that is clear and succinct. Edward Tufte, in his 1983 classis, “The Visual Display of Quantitative data”, advises designers of graphics (including maps) to consider every bit of ink they put on a page (or, similarly, every pixel that is assigned a non-background color on the screen). If it does not add something, then it takes away – this “non-data-ink” or “redundant-data-ink” is what he calls “chart junk”. In the case of titles that say “Map of” or “Distribution of” are great examples of chartjunk. In fact, one should consider whether a title is needed at all. Robinson et al in the 1995 6th Edition of “Elements of Cartography” state, “But sometimes a map’s subject or area is obvious, and no title is really needed.” Slocum et al, state, “A well-crafted title can draw attention to a map, however, thus we recommend usual a title in virtually all situations…”
So you can see, far from being a ridiculous topic, it is one that cartographers pay serious attention to, as they should every aspect of and element on their map!