264 Proceedings of Boyal Society of Edinburgh, [march 19, 
only approximate, owing to the want of accurate observations at a 
considerable distance from the source. It reached Inverness at 5.1, 
Fort William and Glenluichart at 5.3, Oronsay 5.4, Cults, Broad- 
ford, Ardnamurchan at 5.5, and Banff at 5.9. 
The case of the two shocks one and a half minute apart at Dal- 
whinnie would lead to the supposition that there had been an 
overlapping of two earthquake waves here, and the times south of 
this would appear to point to this having been the case, namely, 
Ballinluig 5.1 to 5.2, Edinburgh 5.2. It is probable, therefore, that 
there was a subsidiary rupture, perhaps near Comrie, not caused by 
the passage of the wave from Loch Ness, but nearly simultaneously 
with it. 
The main shock, which was originated in the metamorphosed 
Lower Silurian rocks, made itself felt over Scotland, regardless, 
apparently, of configuration or geological formation, except, per- 
haps, that it was not propagated so far to the N.W. over the 
Laurentian and Cambrian formations of the north-west of Scot- 
land. 
One marked difference between this earthquake and that of 1880 
was, that in 1880 the rumbling noise was confined to a very limited 
area near the source, whereas, in this case, all places, no matter how' 
far distant, heard the sound. Tarbetness and Chanonry lighthouses 
and Falkirk are the only three places at which “no noise” was 
reported. Chanonry is on a gravel spit, and Tarbetness is founded 
on a rock, with 10 feet of gravel over it. 
Mr Omond informs me that the earthquake w^as not felt on Ben 
Nevis. 
In conclusion, I have to thank Mr Murdoch Paterson, C.E. ; Mr 
C. Livingstone, Fort William ; Mrs Fowler ; Miss Sherriff j Dr 
Buchan ; Eev. Mr Hall, Comrie ; Mr W. Anderson Smith, and many 
others, who gave valuable information. 
The information received from various places is given in the 
accompanying table : — 
[Table 
