NUMBER OF MAXIMA IN THE MAIN SHOCK. 
In response to various circulars sent out by the Commission, and to direct inquiries 
by the members of the Commission or their aides in the field, 154 replies have been re- 
ceived, which constitute testimony as to whether the main shock comprized one or more 
maxima. Many of these replies are rather questionable scientific evidence, inasmuch 
as many of them were in response to a leading and suggestive question, and very few 
of them have been subjected to the clarifying process of cross-examination. So few 
people were awake at the time the shock began that but a small proportion of the replies 
come from people who were in full possession of their observational faculties at the begin- 
ning of the disturbance; and of those who were suddenly and rudely awakened, few were 
sufficiently alert for deliberate perception at the time and had to rely upon a somewhat 
confused memory for the character of the shock. Yet the testimony is of value, and 
indicates a very general consensus of the impression that there were 2 principal maxima 
in the shock; and the failure of many to recognize or remember 2 parts to the shock 
does not seriously invalidate the testimony of those who received that impression. 
Of the 154 replies received, 98 testify to 2 maxima; 46 to but one maximum; 9 to 
3 or more maxima; and 1 to more than one. Of the 98 who reported 2 maxima, 67 
discriminated between the 2 parts of the shock, as to their relative intensity; and of 
these 67, there were 48 who had the impression that the second maximum was the more 
severe, and 19 who thought it the less severe. Of the 46 who recognized only one maxi- 
mum, 32 were beyond the zone of destructive effects, where the intensity was VI or less 
(in a few cases VII); and of the remaining 14 cases within the zone of destructive effects, 
11 were offset or contradicted by other reporters in the same general district as them- 
selves, who record two maxima. It would thus appear that within the zone of destruc- 
tive effects, say out to isoseismal VII, the evidence, such as it is, points unmistakably 
to the occurrence of 2 maxima; and the prevailing opinion is that the second was 
the stronger. The failure on the part of many reporters to discriminate 2 parts of the 
shock beyond the isoseismal VII is not surprising, and is offset by the considerable num- 
ber of reports in which 2 maxima were noticed. 
List of observations as to the number of maxima in the earthquake shock. 

No, of 


soureka- seo coe 
| Portuna eeeseeee = 
Pepperwood ....-- 
Briceland see see ee 
| Fort Brace... 
| Cilen Blair scot... 
Albion. oes. a eee 
Philo. shee. eee 
Kish Rock 225-222 
Annapolis. ---22-- 
HortiuRossieee. eee 
Cazadero 222 - eee 
Hemlocksenee see 
Lakeportio-2- se ae 
Sanhedrin cee 
Veteran’s Home .. 
Wooden Valley ... 
Cotati css 2ecimens 

AM Hs Bell Seeeee se 
D. L. Thornberry - 
JH elie. saree 
J. W. Bowden .... 
Ha Huesing > s)-ce. 
AE ocObtise see 
Ga Wa Call esaee= 
K. H. L. Cowley .. 
Ce DAL Bowens 
M. C. Bale 
ASBrownee snes ee 
H. W. Chapman .. 
Ce cL Jenrey occas 

o74 
\ 
NWNeRRENW NNN RR NR ebb 

~ 
b 
Several 
Several 
BNF NRe 

Maximum intensity toward end; duration 47s. 
Locality. Reporter. Maisaa. Remarks. 
| Nolton of s- ce. seee Clara Ward....... Second stronger. 
| Crescent City ..... (x: Sartwell. 22-22. Interval about 2 seconds. 
Montague ..-....- C. H. Chambers -. Duration 30 seconds. 
io ton Stemerme eee Ge LDIsOl eee er 
BiowBargoeeee ee W. A. Pattison ... A tremor which eased up, then another stronger. 
VP ODOOSC -.ee een C. B. Lakemore... 
One greater than the other. 
Second stronger. 
Second stronger. 
Continuous shock, 40s., ending withh eavy one. 
About the same intensity. 
Second stronger. 
lirst in wave motion; second rotatory. 
Increased in force up to third or fourth. 
Second stronger. 
Second stronger. 
Oscillatory, ending with series of shocks. 
Second stronger. 
Second stronger. 
First stronger. 


