It has always tortured me that so many people (particularly in North America) who get the chance to build a golf course - and then give it a lame name.
There are just WAY too many Ridges, Dunes, Trees, Rocks, Lakes and Points. Of course, these are made in reference to the land forms - but too often they're land forms that aren't really obvious enough to have become part of the name.
You can certainly use natural elements in the name to great effect. I always thought the sister courses in Toronto by Hurdzan/Fry had great names: Devil's Pulpit and Devil's Paintbrush (in reference to the flowers of the same names)
Animals suck too. Osprey, Fox, Deer, Rabbit, Bears, etc. Downers all.
But the worst of all: Is the relentless application of the word "Links" and "The Links at..." This gets annoying, because you know at the start, everyone is going to drop that part off when spoken about in passing, so why use it at all? Beyond that, the vast majority of these courses have absolutely nothing about them which resembles links golf. This trend has only led to confusion about it's definition.
Lame.
The name should be as carefully chosen as any other aspect of the course. If you want to make a special place, take the time to give it a special name. That name will become part of our language of describing our golf experience.