Contemporary Studies of the 3 May 1887
Mw 7.5 Sonora, Mexico (Basin and Range
Province) Earthquake
Max Suter
Max Suter
Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to highlight the outstanding studies
George Emory Goodfellow (1855–1910) and José Guadalupe
Aguilera Serrano (1857–1941) made of the devastating 3 May
1887 Mw 7.5 Sonora earthquake (Figure 1). Goodfellow’s observational study, based on his fieldwork in 1887 and partly published in Science in 1887 and 1888 (Goodfellow, 1887a, 1887b,
1888), includes the first surface rupture map of an earthquake
in North America and photographs of the rupture scarp by
Camillus Sidney Fly (1849–1901). Aguilera’s 1888 publication
(in Spanish), which is based on his expedition to the epicentral
region of this earthquake in the summer of 1887, includes the
first geologic map of northeastern Sonora, a detailed surface
rupture map, and the earliest isoseismal map, source parameters,
and seismic velocities of an earthquake in North America. An
abridged translated version of Aguilera’s 1888 article was published without figures in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America (Aguilera, 1920), and his rupture map was reproduced by Richter (1958, p. 595, Figure 31-2). Nevertheless,
Aguilera’s and Goodfellow’s studies are not widely known today,
and they are not given credit for their pioneering achievements
in reviews of the history of seismology (for example, Davison,
1927; Agnew, 2002) or earthquake geology (historical vignettes
in Yeats et al., 1997). Here I review the major accomplishments
in Goodfellow’s and Aguilera’s contributions and place them in
a historical context.
The 3 May 1887 Sonora event is the largest historical earthquake of the southern Basin and Range tectonic-physiographic
province and produced worldwide the longest recorded normalfault surface rupture in historic time. The end-to-end length of
the rupture trace (Figure 2) measures 101.8 km. The magnitude
of the event is estimated as Mw = 7.5±0.3 based on this distance
and the surface rupture length versus magnitude regression for
normal fault earthquakes by Wells and Coppersmith (1994,
Table 2A). The rupture dips ~74° W (Suter and Contreras,
2002) and has a maximum vertical slip of 5.1 m, whereas the
horizontal slip is negligible (Herd and McMasters, 1982). The
earthquake reactivated three segments (Figure 2) of a normal
fault zone that extends more than 300 km along the western
margin of the Sierra Madre Occidental plateau (Figure 1). The
▲ Figure 1. Location map showing the rupture trace of the 1887
Sonora, Mexico, earthquake (within box, marked by bold black
lines). B: Bavispe River; V: Óputo (now Villa Hidalgo); H: Huásabas;
G: Granados; M: Oposura (now Moctezuma); gray solid line: international boundary; gray dashed lines: state boundaries; box: region
covered by Figure 2.
fault zone separates the plateau from the Sonoran Basin and
Range province (Brand, 1937), a series of north-south trending fault-bounded mountain ranges separated by river valleys.
A seismotectonic map of this region including epicenters, focal
mechanisms, and the traces of Basin and Range faults is provided
in Suter and Contreras (2002, Figure 2). The occurrence and
location of microseismicity (Natali and Sbar, 1982), the 26 May
1907 M I 5.2 Colonia Morelos, and the 7 May 1913 M I 5.0 and
20 December 1923 M I 5.7 Granados-Huásabas events (Suter,
2001) can be explained by an increase in static shear stress at the
tips of the three rupture segments and on neighboring faults by
the 1887 rupture (Suter and Contreras, 2002). The 1887 earthquake destroyed the town of Bavispe (Figures 1 and 2), where
42 lives were lost out of a population of 700 (Goodfellow,
1887b), and severely damaged the towns of Fronteras, Nacori
Chico, Bacadéhuachi, Granados, Huásabas, Óputo (now Villa
Hidalgo), Oposura (now Moctezuma), Sahuaripa, and Janos
134 Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006
▲ Figure 2. Digital elevation model (SRTM, 3 arc-sec resolution) of
northeastern Sonora (location marked in Figure 1) showing the rupture
trace of the 1887 Sonora earthquake marked by white bold lines (from
Suter and Contreras, 2002, modified); 1: Pitáycachi segment; 2: Teras
segment; 3: Otates segment. A: Agua Prieta, B: Bavispe; D: Douglas;
F: Fronteras; H: Huachineras; S: San Bernardino; V: Óputo (now Villa
Hidalgo); a: Bavispe River; b: San Bernardino (Batepito) River; c: Cajón
Bonito; d: Cañón de los Embudos; e: Arroyo Pitáycachi; f: Arroyo de
la Cabellera; g: Cerro Pitáycachi; h: Sierra de la Cabellera (Cabellera
Mountains); i: Sierra El Tigre (mountain range within the big bend of
the Bavispe River); k: Sierra Pilares de Teras (Teras mountain range;
northernmost part of Sierra El Tigre); dashed white line: international
boundary. Arrows show locations where photographs of the surface
rupture were taken by Camillus S. Fly (Figures 6-10).
(Figure 1). These towns were built on river terraces composed
of water-saturated alluvium, which is prone to severe ground
shaking. Towns located on firmer ground, such as Tombstone
and Bisbee (Figure 1), suffered less (DuBois and Smith, 1980).
GOODFELLOW’S EXPEDITIONS
Tombstone, Arizona Territory (Figure 1), was the largest town
in the epicentral region of the 1887 earthquake; its peak population in 1882–1884 was probably about 10,000 (Walker and
Bufkin, 1986). Two Tombstone residents, the photographer
Camillus Sidney Fly (Vaughn, 1989; Cooper, 1989; Rowe,
1997) and the physician and naturalist Dr. George Emory
Goodfellow, made important contributions to the early studies of this earthquake. Goodfellow’s intellectual curiosity and
wide range of interests also are expressed by his numerous articles in medical journals about frontier surgery and an article in
Scientific American about the Gila monster, a poisonous lizard
(Chaput, 1996).
Fly took pictures documenting the earthquake surfacerupture (Figures 6–10, below) and the damage caused by the
temblor in Bavispe (DuBois and Smith, 1980, Figures 12–15).
To my knowledge, these are the earliest photographs of an
earthquake surface-rupture worldwide and probably among the
earliest landscape photographs taken in northeastern Sonora.
They are dispersed in various repositories, such as the Arizona
Historical Society in Tucson, the Arizona State Archives in
Phoenix, the University of California, Berkeley (Steinbrugge
Collection), and the Bisbee Mining & Historical Museum and
have never been published in their entirety. Here I include five
Fly photographs of the surface rupture (Figures 6–10, below),
courtesy of the Karl V. Steinbrugge Collection, National
Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, University
of California, Berkeley. At the time of the earthquake, Fly
already was familiar with this remote area, having taken photographs the year before at Cañón de Los Embudos (Figure 2)
to document the war camp of a group of Chiricahua Apaches
led by Gerónimo and their surrender negotiations with General
George Crook (Van Orden, 1989). These photographs, printed
as engravings in Harper’s Weekly (24 April 1886), had made
Fly widely known. Coincidentally, the negotiations took place
only ~3 km upstream from the place where, in the following
year, the earthquake surface-rupture would cross Cañón de los
Embudos.
Goodfellow had rushed a preliminary note to Science on 7
May 1887 (Goodfellow, 1887a), only four days after the earthquake. His letter, dated “Tombstone, A.T., May 7,” appeared in
the Science issue of 20 May 1887. In a second letter to Science,
dated 14 July 1887, Goodfellow (1887b) reported about a first
trip to the earthquake zone in Sonora, on which he accompanied Professor Ferdinand Lee Clark of Honolulu (Tombstone
Daily Epitaph, 9 July 1887), and included a sketch map of the
rupture trace (Figure 3). He described the surface rupture as a
fault with a general north-south strike, a dip from 45° to vertical,
and an average throw of eight feet (~2.4 m). Goodfellow then
left Tombstone later in July or in early August 1887 together
with Fly for a second extended trip to Sonora, where he made
a more detailed observational study of the earthquake. After
his return, Goodfellow prepared a comprehensive report about
his observations. The Tombstone Daily Prospector reported on
14 September 1887 that “Dr. Goodfellow is busily engaged in
preparing his report of the recent scientific investigations made
by him in Sonora. It is learned that he has not yet fully determined whether to publish it himself or to turn it over to the
U.S. Geological Survey.” The Tombstone Epitaph reported on 6
January 1888 that “Dr. Goodfellow is busily engaged during his
leisure moments in preparing maps, tracings, etc. showing the
Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006 135
suggests that these prints were originally part of the report
about the earthquake authored by Goodfellow.
Goodfellow’s itinerary can be retraced from his 1888 article. He surveyed the surface rupture in a southern direction to
the Bavispe River and 8 km beyond (Figure 3; Pitáycachi rupture segment on Figure 2). Fly’s photographs document the
surface rupture at several places (Figures 6–10, below) and the
camp of the field party near the junction of the Batepito (San
Bernardino) and Bavispe rivers (Figures 2 and 3). From there,
Goodfellow and Fly must have traveled along the river to Bavispe
(Figures 1 and 2), where Fly took pictures of the destruction
caused by the earthquake. From Bavispe, Goodfellow moved
on to Bacadéhuachi, Granados, Óputo, and Fronteras (Figure
1), from where he provided macroseismic observations. No Fly
photographs are known from this part of Goodfellow’s trip
beyond Bavispe, and it is likely that Fly returned from Bavispe
on his own directly to Tombstone.
The photographs by Fly are the only known historical
photographs of the 1887 earthquake, with the exception of a
picture by James Douglas showing ground fissures near Agua
Prieta (Figure 2), which was printed as an engraving in Harper’s
Weekly (2 July 1887), where it accompanied a note by Thomas
Sterry Hunt and James Douglas about the earthquake (see also
Sterry Hunt and Douglas, 1887, 1888a, 1888b), and which was
reproduced as a halftone print in DuBois and Smith (1980,
Figure 9).
AGUILERA’S EXPEDITION
▲ Figure 3. Sketch map of the rupture trace by Goodfellow (1887b),
who mapped the surface rupture in the south ~8 km beyond its
intersection with the Bavispe River. The rupture trace mapped by
Goodfellow as well as Aguilera (Figure 5) has an end-to-end length
of 56 km and is now known as the Pitáycachi segment of the surface
rupture. The scale is approximate.
results of the earthquake disturbance in Sonora, which when
completed will be forwarded to the U.S. Geological Survey
in Washington.” When Tombstone hosted the first Cochise
County Teacher’s Institute, Goodfellow contributed a talk
about the Sonora earthquake on 8 February 1888 (Tombstone
Daily Prospector, 9 February 1888). Goodfellow’s report, which
included photographs by Fly and maps, was sent to Captain C.
E. Dutton of the U.S. Geological Survey. A six-page summary
of his report (without the maps and photographs), edited by
Dutton, appeared on 6 April 1888 in Science (Goodfellow,
1888). However, the full version of Goodfellow’s report is
lost; neither the original nor any copy appears to have survived
(DuBois and Smith, 1980, p. 17). The technical nature of the
captions of the Fly photographs in the Steinbrugge Collection
Aguilera was dispatched to the epicentral region on 1 July
1887 from Hermosillo (Figure 1), where he was employed by
the Scientific Commission of Sonora (Comisión Científica de
Sonora) as Head of the Department of Naturalists ( Jefe de la
Sección Naturalista). In his work order, which is included in
his 1888 publication on page 9, he was asked not only to study
the earthquake but also to describe the regional geology along
his itinerary, collect rock samples, and construct a geologic map
and cross sections. Aguilera was accompanied by a military
crew carrying out triangulation that resulted in a topographic
map of the expedition area. In Aguilera’s 1888 report, credit for
the topographic work is given to Juan B. Laurencio and Nicolás
Lazo de la Vega, who possibly are depicted in Figure 4. Aguilera
and Laurencio also held positions at the Comisión GeográficoExploradora, the Mexican federal mapping agency of its
time, located in Jalapa, Veracruz. It is likely that Aguilera was
assigned to the Scientific Commission of Sonora not because
of the earthquake but to do field mapping for the first geologic
map of the Republic of Mexico (1:3,000,000 scale), which was
published in 1889 (facsimile in de Cserna, 1990, pl. 1).
The itinerary of the expedition, ~750 km long, is marked
on the geologic and topographic maps in Aguilera’s 1888
report. The field party traveled from Hermosillo to Oposura
(now Moctezuma) (Figure 1) and from there to Bavispe, where
they spent 15 days in August 1887 documenting the damage
to the village and mapping ground fissures (Aguilera, 1888, p.
37). From Bavispe, they moved to the junction of the Bavispe
136 Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006
▲ Figure 4. Photograph by Camillus S. Fly possibly showing the Aguilera and Goodfellow field parties in August 1887 near Bavispe, at a place
where major fissures formed a small graben in the flood plain of the Bavispe River. The labeled persons are interpreted to be G: George E.
Goodfellow; A: José G. Aguilera; L: Major Juan B. Laurencio, topographer of the Aguilera expedition; and K: Emilio Kosterlitzky.
and San Bernardino rivers and mapped the earthquake surface rupture scarp that passes along the eastern margin of the
San Bernardino valley (Figure 5; Pitáycachi rupture segment
on Figure 2). The expedition then proceeded on the U.S. side
of the international boundary from San Bernardino to Agua
Prieta (Figure 5), from where they returned to Moctezuma and
Hermosillo.
Aguilera published the results of his expedition in 1888;
the preface to his article was written in Hermosillo on 18 March
1888. The first half of his article is taken up by the geologic
description of his itinerary and the collected samples, whereas
the second half is related to the 3 May 1887 earthquake. The article includes four plates: an isoseismal map (scale: 1:6,000,000)
covering the southwestern United States and Mexico; a geologic
map of northeastern Sonora (scale: 1:1,000,000); a topographic
map of northeastern Sonora (scale: 1:1,000,000; contour interval: 250 m) that shows the surface rupture and ground fissures
caused by the earthquake; and a plate with five geologic cross
sections. Aguilera (1888, p. 7) considered the topographic
and geologic maps necessary tools to document and interpret
the earthquake-related field observations and to formulate a
hypothesis about the cause of the earthquake.
The Aguilera and Goodfellow expeditions met in Bavispe
in August 1887. The encounter is mentioned by Goodfellow
(1888, p. 162). A group portrait taken by Fly near Bavispe, at
a place where major fissures developed in the flood plain of the
Bavispe River, possibly shows the two field parties (Figure 4).
In the Steinbrugge Collection, this photograph has the caption “Depressions or seismic troughs in river bed. View from
Babispe, looking northwest. (Fly)” A comparison with photographs in Chaput (1996) suggests that the person labeled G
is very likely Goodfellow, who was 32 years of age when this
picture was taken. Based on a comparison with a photograph
in de Cserna (1990, Figure 14), Aguilera is possibly the person
labeled A. Aguilera was the only civilian in the Mexican field
party and was 30 years old at the time the picture was taken. The
second person from the right (labeled L) is possibly Major Juan
B. Laurencio, topographer of the Aguilera expedition. Based
on comparisons with photographs in Smith (1970) and Truett
(2004), the civilian on the outer right (labeled K) is likely to
be Emilio Kosterlitzky (1853–1928), who worked in 1887 in
Bavispe for the Mexican customs guard or Gendarmería Fiscal,
and who registered the aftershocks of the 3 May 1887 earthquake (Orozco y Berra, 1887, p. 522).
THE SURFACE RUPTURE OF THE 1887
EARTHQUAKE
Goodfellow (1887b) and Aguilera (1888) mapped the scarp
of what is now known as the Pitáycachi segment of the surface
rupture (Figure 2). Their maps are reproduced here as Figures
3 and 5, respectively. According to these maps, the surface rupture extends from 10 km south of the international border in
the north to 8 km beyond its intersection with the Bavispe
River in the south. Remarkably, the end-to-end rupture length
of 56 km obtained from modern topographic maps, based on
the rupture trace marked by Aguilera on Figure 5, coincides
with the rupture length of ~35 miles indicated by Goodfellow
(1888). Goodfellow and Aguilera described the surface rupture
as having a sinuous trace parallel to the mountain front, with
the western block downthrown. According to both authors, the
rupture scarp developed over its entire length in alluvium and
is characterized by a continuous crevice passing along its base.
Goodfellow mentions an exception at Cerro Pitáycachi, where
bedrock is cut off by the rupture (Figure 8) and south of the
Bavispe River, where the trace passes within bedrock.
Goodfellow and Aguilera did not survey the Teras rupture
segment and evidently were not aware of the existence of the
Otates segment (Figure 2). Coincidentally, on his way to Bavispe,
Aguilera had crossed the Sierra El Tigre only ~15 km south
Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006 137
▲ Figure 5. Enlarged detail of the topographic map by Aguilera (1888) showing the tectonic rupture scarp of the 3 May 1887 earthquake along
the eastern margin of the San Bernardino Valley (bold line with numerous northward bifurcations), ground fissures in the San Bernardino Valley
(short bold lines), and his itinerary (thin line composed of straight-line segments). The contour interval is 250 m. The scale is approximate.
of the southern termination of the Otates segment, between
Óputo and Huachineras (Figure 2). Goodfellow (1888) mentions a possible southern continuation of the surface rupture,
~24 km long, beyond the mapped segment (Figure 3) into the
Teras mountain range (Figure 2) based on observations relayed
to him by some prospectors. According to the itinerary marked
on his rupture map (Figure 5), Aguilera did not visit the part of
the rupture located south of the Bavispe River, which looks on
his map identical to the trace shown by Goodfellow (Figure 3).
Fly’s photographs (Figures 6–10) document the surface rupture at several locations. The northernmost picture
(Figure 6), a close-up between Arroyo Pitáycachi and Cañón
de los Embudos, most likely at 109.135 long. W / 31.088 lat.
N. (Figure 2), shows the scarp to be subvertical, ~4.4 m high,
and composed of alluvial gravel cemented by caliche; a fissure
or crevice can be seen at the base of the scarp. This photograph
also indicates that the ground surface is not rotated toward the
scarp, which suggests a simple planar near-surface geometry of
the rupture. Figure 7 shows the earthquake rupture ~3 km south
of Figure 6, near Arroyo Pitáycachi (Figure 2), where the scarp
is ~3.3 m high and composed of alluvial gravel. Figure 8 shows
surface faulting near Cerro Pitáycachi (Figure 2). According to
Goodfellow, this is the only place north of the Bavispe River
where he observed bedrock (felsic volcanic rock and a dike)
forming the face of the rupture scarp. The surface rupture dips
here 68° W and has a height of ~2.8 m. Figure 9 shows the surface rupture in the vicinity of Arroyo de la Cabellera (Figure
2). In the Steinbrugge Collection, this photograph has the caption “Fault opposite the Cabellera Mountains. Here it splits
into three. The center one is the main fissure. Difference of level
is four feet upper, six feet middle, four feet lower. View looks
east. (Fly)” Following Goodfellow (1888, p. 163), this triplicate
138 Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006
▲ Figure 6. Previously unpublished 1887 photograph by Camillus S. Fly of the earthquake rupture scarp in an ocotillo forest between Arroyo
Pitáycachi and Cañón de los Embudos, most likely at 109.135 long. W / 31.088 lat. N. (Figure 2). The view is from the northwest. The scarp is
subvertical, composed of alluvial gravel cemented by caliche, and its height is estimated here as ~4.4 m. The two persons are standing in a fissure or crevice that developed along the scarp. The ground surface is not rotated toward the scarp, which suggests a simple planar near-surface
geometry of the rupture.
division opposite the Cabellera Mountains is more than a mile
in length. The photograph (Figure 9) shows in the foreground
the lower (westernmost) of the three ruptures (Figure 2) and in
the background part of the central rupture (marked by arrows)
in alluvial deposits. Figure 10 shows the rupture scarp directly
south of the Bavispe River (Figure 2). In the Steinbrugge
Collection, this photograph has the caption “Location of fault
after it crosses the Yaqui at San Rafael. The dark line shows the
course of the fissure as it passes into the Teras Mountains. View
looks south. (Fly)” The line corresponds to the tectonic contact
between Tertiary volcanic rocks and fault-scarp colluvium. This
highlighting of the rupture trace and the technical nature of the
captions to Figures 9 and 10 suggest strongly that the Fly photographs in the Steinbrugge Collection were originally part of
the report about the earthquake authored by Goodfellow.
Aguilera (1888, p. 41–44) measured scarp heights (from
south to north) that increase from zero at the Bavispe River
to 0.6–1.0 m somewhat north of the river, and 2.7 m where
the scarp crosses the Batepito-Bavispe road. Farther north, he
reports an odd measurement of 8 m at Arroyo de la Cabellera
(Figure 2; the valley south of Peñasquito on Figure 5), a consistent height of 4 m between La Cabellera and Cerro Pitáycachi
(Figure 2), and farther north a decrease to 2.5 m at Cañón de
los Embudos (Figure 5) and 0.2 m at Barranca de Cuchuvérachi
(called Elias Creek by Goodfellow and now known as Cajón
Bonito, Figure 2). Aguilera also measured at several places
the scarp inclination, for which he obtained values of 75–90°.
Following Goodfellow, the scarp height is five feet and less
(<1.5 m) south of the Bavispe River with an average of three
feet (0.9 m), fourteen feet (4.3 m) near Arroyo de la Cabellera
(Figure 9), between eight and more than 20 feet (2.4 to >6.1 m)
between Arroyo de la Cabellera and Cerro Pitáycachi (Figure
2), and the average scarp height measures “a little over seven
feet” (~2.2 m).
Several parts of Aguilera’s article indicate that he interpreted the earthquake rupture to be of a tectonic nature and
to have a deep-seated geometry: (1) In the geology part of his
article, he described the transition zone between the plateau of
the Sierra Madre Occidental in the east and the lowlands near
the Gulf of California in the west as a large-scale staircase pattern, with the steep, fault-bounded side of the mountain ranges
always facing west (Figure 2). On his geologic map (facsimile in
Suter, 2006), Aguilera used a cartographic unit of volcanic rocks
that belong mostly to the vast cover of the middle Tertiary Sierra
Madre Occidental volcanic province and units of Pliocene and
Quaternary rocks that belong to the fill of extensional basins.
These units define on his map a series of north-south trending fault-bounded mountain ranges separated by the valleys of
Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006 139
▲ Figure 7. Previously unpublished 1887 photograph by Camillus S. Fly of the earthquake rupture scarp near Arroyo Pitáycachi (Figure 2), ~3 km
south of Figure 6; the rupture scarp in the background is marked by an arrow. The view is from the northwest. The scarp is ~3.3 m high and
composed of alluvial gravel. The two hills in the background are located in the footwall of the Pitáycachi fault, composed of Tertiary volcanic rocks,
and capped by Quaternary alluvial-fan deposits.
▲ Figure 8. Previously unpublished 1887 photograph by Camillus S. Fly of the earthquake rupture scarp near Cerro Pitáycachi (Figure 2), which
is the mountain peak in the background. The view is from the west. Following Goodfellow, this is the only place where bedrock (felsic volcanic
rocks and a dike) forms the face of the rupture scarp. The surface rupture, which dips here 68° W, cuts off the dike at 109.159° long. W / 31.035°
lat. N (white arrow). The scarp height measures ~2.8 m.
140 Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006
▲ Figure 9. Photograph of the 3 May 1887 earthquake rupture scarp near Arroyo de la Cabellera (Figure 2) taken by Camillus S. Fly in 1887. In the
Steinbrugge Collection, the caption of this photograph reads: “Fault opposite the Cabellera Mountains. Here it splits into three. The center one is
the main fissure. Difference of level is four feet upper, six feet middle, four feet lower. View looks east. (Fly)” Following Goodfellow (1888, p. 163),
this triplicate division opposite the Cabellera Mountains is more than a mile in length. The photograph shows the lower (westernmost) of the three
ruptures (scarp height: 1.15 m) at 109.157° long. W / 30.885° lat. N (Figure 2). The middle rupture can be seen at two locations in the background
(arrows). The rupture scarps and the hill in the foreground are composed of Quaternary alluvial fan deposits and the hills in the background of
Lower Cretaceous siliciclastic sediments (La Morita Formation). The high mountains in the background belong to the Tertiary Sierra Madre Oriental
volcanic province; the prominent peak in the center forms part of the southern rim of Arroyo de la Cabellera canyon.
major rivers, a landscape pattern typical of the southern Basin
and Range physiographic province; (2) Aguilera (1888, p. 40)
reported significant subsidence of an intensely fissured 2-km2
area near Batepito (Figure 5), within the hanging wall ~8 km
west of the fault trace, and explained this subsidence by motion
along the fault. (According to Goodfellow [1888, p. 163], “At
Batepito Ranch, an area two miles long by one wide was four or
more inches deep with water immediately succeeding the first
shock on May 3”); (3) Based on his macroseismic observations,
Aguilera (1888, p. 52) assumed the epicenter to be located in
this subsided region (Figure 11) and estimated a focal depth of
18 km (see below); (4) In his discussion of the probable cause of
the earthquake, Aguilera (1888, p. 56) considered it most likely
that the seismic vibrations were caused by movement along a
fault displacing the Tertiary volcanic rocks, and whose trace
is covered by Quaternary sediments, which resulted from the
continuous increase in the weight of the Quaternary rocks overcoming the shear resistance and the horizontal stress.
Goodfellow (1888, p. 162–163) repeatedly pondered
whether the earthquake rupture is deep-seated or the result of
surficial slip and concluded that “there seems a preponderance
of evidence favoring the first opinion.” He also mentioned the
possibility of previous displacements along the same fault: “A
point which attracted my attention, and which seemed significant, was the appearance of the foot-wall of the slip in many
places, particularly where it abutted closely on the mountains.
This was the polished surface, as if the same place had been the
seat of similar perturbations in the past.”
The acceptance of a tectonic nature of the surface rupture
by both Aguilera and Goodfellow is probably implicitly also
based on their observation of secondary ruptures at bends of
the primary rupture trace. Aguilera mapped at many places
northward bifurcations of the rupture scarp (Figure 5), from
which he inferred a northward direction of the rupture propagation (1888, p. 45); this is likely to be the earliest inference
worldwide of an earthquake rupture direction based on field
observations. Goodfellow (1888, p. 163) described these bifur-
Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006 141
▲ Figure 10. Previously unpublished 1887 photograph by Camillus S. Fly of the earthquake rupture scarp south of the Bavispe River (Figure 2).
In the Steinbrugge Collection, the caption of this photograph reads: “Location of fault after it crosses the Yaqui at San Rafael. The dark line shows
the course of the fissures as it passes into the Teras Mountains. View looks south. (Fly)” The near (northern) end of the dark line is located at
109.187 long. W / 30.810 lat. N.
cations as follows: “Some things to be noticed about the fault,
in connection with its sinuous course, are the small fissures
at each bend with any great degree of angularity. These occur
on the salients of each angle, but have no great length, in no
place extending over a few hundred yards, except opposite the
Cabellera Mountains [Figure 2], where there is a triplicate division over a mile in length [Figure 9]. This gives the main fault
the appearance of having been compressed lineally from the
south, most of them having the free end to the north. They are
mostly ground-throws, not simply cracks.”
Aguilera (1888, p. 44) also described systems of what he
called second- and third-order ruptures, located within a 300m wide zone on either side of the main rupture. Following
Aguilera, the orientation of the second-order faults is parallel to
the main fault or forms acute angles of 15–20° with it, whereas
the orientation of the third-order faults is approximately perpendicular to the main fault. Aguilera’s second- and third-order
faults can be interpreted as Riedel shear fractures, which are
characteristic subsidiary fractures of strike-slip faults (Yeats et
al., 1997). However, neither Goodfellow nor Aguilera report
any horizontal displacement along the main rupture.
MACROSEISMIC OBSERVATIONS AND
AGUILERA’S ISOSEISMAL MAP OF THE 1887
EARTHQUAKE
The intensity observations of the 3 May 1887 earthquake by
Goodfellow (1887a, 1887b, 1888) and Aguilera (1888) as
well as the ones catalogued by Orozco y Berra (1887, 1888) are
included in the detailed compilation of the historical accounts
of this earthquake by DuBois and Smith (1980), DuBois et al.
(1982), and Sbar and DuBois (1984). The paper by Aguilera
(1888) includes an isoseismal map, which is in all likelihood
the first published intensity map for an earthquake in North
America. An excerpt of the map is reproduced here on a reduced
scale as Figure 11. The map, which employs the 1–10 RossiForel scale, does not provide the entry data points and values.
The earthquake was felt as far north as Santa Fé, New Mexico,
as far west as Yuma, Arizona, and as far east and south as Mexico
City. Aguilera estimated the felt area as 1,200,000 km2 and
located the epicenter of the 1887 earthquake in the center of
the innermost isoseismal (intensity: 10), near Batepito, ~8 km
west of the surface rupture trace (Figure 11). The isoseismals
are elongated in NNW–SSE direction, which Aguilera (1888,
p. 37–38) explained by directional differences in the intensity
attenuation properties of the rocks.
The U.S. Geological Survey had distributed a large number
of letters of inquiry shortly after the earthquake with questions
related to the exact time the shocks were felt; duration and any
other particulars giving an idea of the intensity of the shock;
apparent direction in which the wave traveled; accompanying
sounds; effect on springs, wells, mountain ranges, etc. (El Paso
Times, 7 May 1887; Arizona Daily Star, 8 May 1887; Dutton
1889a, p. 165). According to a press release by the Survey,
about two hundred reports were received on the subject, on
which Dutton based an estimate that the earthquake was felt
in about two-thirds of each of the territories of Arizona and
New Mexico and was not comparable in violence and extent
142 Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006
▲ Figure 11. Excerpt from the isoseismal map of the 3 May 1887 earthquake by José G. Aguilera (1888). The map employs the 1–10 Rossi-Forel
scale. The only entry point not shown on the excerpt is Mexico City, with an intensity of one. Aguilera assumed the epicenter of the 1887 earthquake to be located in the center of the innermost isoseismal (intensity 10), near Batepito, ~8 km west of the surface rupture trace (Figure 5).
Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006 143
to the 31 August 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake
(Arizona Daily Star and Tombstone Daily Epitaph, 10 June
1887). Unfortunately, the answers to the circular of the U.S.
Geological Survey are lost (DuBois and Smith, 1980, p. 17).
Based on Aguilera’s isoseismal map (Figure 11), it is likely
that he had access to the macroseismic information gathered
by the U.S. Geological Survey, because the isoseismals pass
through major towns such as Yuma, Globe, Phoenix, Benson,
Tombstone, El Paso, Socorro, Albuquerque, and Santa Fé.
The map probably also is based on information from the
Observatorio Meteorológico Central de México, which had
received telegrams with felt reports from several locations in
Mexico.
Numerous macroseismic observations also were made by
Goodfellow, partly for areas that were not visited by Aguilera.
Because Goodfellow (1888) repeatedly refers to isoseismals, it
is likely that an isoseismal map was part of the lost full version
of his report, whereas no figures are included in the abridged
version published in Science.
SOURCE PARAMETERS OF THE 1887
EARTHQUAKE
Macroseismic observations and isoseismal patterns were used in
the pre-instrumental period to determine earthquake source
parameters (Dutton, 1889b; Dutton, 1904; Davison, 1927).
Aguilera (1888, p. 53) assumed the epicenter of the 1887 earthquake to be located at 109°05’55’’W / 30°48’24’’N, in the center
of the innermost isoseismal (Figure 11), a subsided and intensely
fissured area near the Batepito ranch, ~8 km west of the surface
rupture trace (Figure 5). Furthermore, he calculated a focal depth
of 18 km based on an obsolete technique that assumed (i) the
epicenter to be located in the center of the innermost isoseismal;
(ii) the intensity attenuation to be quadratic; and (iii) the distance from the epicenter to the location where the change in
intensity attenuation is a maximum (i.e., where the second derivative of the attenuation function is zero) to bear to the focal depth
the ratio 1: 3 . Aguilera refers to this technique as the method
developed by Dutton and Hayden of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Details of this technique and the underlying theory, which are
not considered valid any more, are given by Dutton (1889b,
1904). Davison (1927, p. 150) lists seven earthquakes for which
Dutton’s method was applied to calculate the focal depth.
However, because his list does not include the 1887 Sonora
earthquake, he was evidently unaware of Aguilera’s study.
Based on records by Emilio Kosterlitzky, Aguilera (1888,
p. 36) noted that the intervals between the aftershocks of the
3 May 1887 earthquake increased with time. Six to eight aftershocks were felt daily immediately after the earthquake, whereas
in August, when Aguilera spent 15 days in Bavispe, he felt only
two aftershocks. Two lists of aftershocks of the 1887 earthquake by Kosterlitzky and Aguilera are provided in Orozco y
Berra (1887, p. 522–523). However, they both cover incomplete time periods. A search in the Kosterlitzky archive (Special
Collections of the University of Arizona Library) did not provide additional information.
INSTRUMENTAL OBSERVATIONS
The 1887 earthquake generally is considered a pre-instrumental
event. Nevertheless, several early instrumental observations are
associated with it. The earthquake disturbed the needle of the
magnetograph of the Coast and Geodetic Survey in Los Angeles,
California (Dutton, 1904, p. 55), and possibly was recorded
by the set of Ewing seismographs at the Lick Observatory on
Mount Hamilton, California (Holden, 1887, p. 76), which had
been installed earlier the same year (Davison, 1927, p. 147).
Seismic experiments were carried out by Goodfellow
(1888, p. 164): “I had rigged up a seismograph, if such a contrivance can be entitled to the name, consisting of a bullet
suspended in a large beer-bottle. This, with moderate accuracy, gave me the direction of the vibrations, and all seemed to
come from the northern end of the Teras mountains [stepover
between the Pitáycachi and Teras segments, Figure 2]. While I
was in the neighborhood, certainly, all seismic disturbances had
their origin from those mountains, irrespective of my situation.”
Goodfellow’s observations are confirmed by Aguilera (1888, p.
53), who reports the aftershocks he felt in Bavispe as coming
from the northwest and, while he traveled counterclockwise
around the epicentral region, as coming consistently from the
region near the junction of the Batepito (San Bernardino) and
Bavispe rivers (Figures 2 and 5).
SEISMIC VELOCITIES
Aguilera (1888, p. 54) estimated the mean velocity of the 1887
Sonora earthquake waves based on the times at which the earthquake was recorded in Tombstone and at railway stations in the
United States (El Paso, Deming, Willcox, Benson, Tucson,
Crittenden, Nogales, Fairbank, Maricopa, Phoenix, Gila Bend)
and in Mexico (Hermosillo, Guaymas, Mexico City). Aguilera
had obtained these arrival times from Goodfellow. In 1887, exact
recording times of earthquakes were difficult to get, and the best
records were made as a rule by telegraph reporters and railroad
officials whose time was corrected by daily telegraph (El Paso
Times, 7 May 1887). Once a day, a signal was telegraphed from
an astronomical clock to every telegraph station in the country
at an appointed hour, minute, and second. Thus every village
reached by a telegraph line had the means of knowing each day
the time of some standard meridian to a single second (Dutton,
1889b). Aguilera calculated a mean seismic wave propagation
velocity of 1,772 m/s; the highest velocities were 2,730 m/s
between the epicenter and Mexico City, 3,050 m/s between
Tucson and Gila Bend, and 3,416 m/s between the epicenter
and Tombstone. Aguilera commented that these velocities were
much higher than the values assumed until recently. Previously,
Dutton (1887) had commented that the time observations
obtained for the Sonora earthquake gave a very high wave
speed, and that preliminary examinations indicated a speed
about the same as that obtained for the Charleston earthquake.
The propagation velocities subsequently published for the 1886
Charleston earthquake (Dutton, 1989b) yielded a mean seismic velocity of 4.2 to 5.2 km/s based on a much larger data set.
144 Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006
Aguilera’s calculations of the speed of earthquake waves likely
are the earliest ones worldwide based on time records showing
the instant of passage of an earthquake shock. Previous calculations were based on experimental shocks and yielded lower
wave velocities (Dutton, 1904). However, Aguilera’s estimates
have a high uncertainty, because he rounded the travel times to
entire minutes and had to make an assumption about the origin
time of the earthquake.
DISCUSSION
The 1887 Sonora earthquake is likely the earliest earthquake
worldwide where tectonic surface faulting was recognized as
such and described in detail. Inspection of surface faulting soon
after the event began with the 1855 Wairarapa, New Zealand;
1861 Egion, Greece; and 1872 Owens Valley, California
(Whitney, 1872; Gilbert, 1884), earthquakes. However, the
predominance and amount of dextral displacement in the 1855
Wairarapa earthquake was recognized only in the 1950s (Darby
and Beanland, 1992), and the 1861 Egion rupture was interpreted as a large-scale gravitational slide (Yeats et al., 1997).
Furthermore, Whitney (1872) did not recognize the graben
structure of Owens Valley or the tectonic character of the 1872
Owens Valley earthquake. He interpreted the surface rupture
to be “local phenomena … not to be taken as indicative of a
general motion of the valley in any fixed direction.” Gilbert
made field observations of the 1872 Owens Valley earthquake
in 1883 (Beanland and Clark, 1994) but only cursorily mentioned the rupture in his 1884 essay (Gilbert, 1884), which is
not illustrated.
Aguilera’s 1888 paper does not contain any bibliographical
references, which was customary at that time. One is left wondering how he was educated about the study of earthquakes and
where he learned the techniques he employed. Aguilera graduated from the School of Mines (Escuela de Minería) in Mexico
City as a mining engineer and worked from 1882 on for the
Comisión Geográfico-Exploradora, the Mexican federal mapping agency of its time, for which he carried out geologic field
work in east-central Mexico. In 1884–86, before his assignment in Hermosillo, he stayed at the Smithsonian Institution
in Washington, D.C. (Rubinovich Kogan et al., 1991). Charles
G. Rockwood, the earliest scholar of earthquakes in the United
States (Davison, 1927, p. 144) published summaries of recent
work in seismology in the Reports of the Smithsonian Institution
in 1884, 1885, and 1887, which must have been known to
Aguilera. Moreover, it is likely that Aguilera read Gilbert’s
seminal 1884 essay about tectonic faulting associated with
earthquakes and the fault origin of the Basin and Range province. In this exceptionally lucid paper, Gilbert introduced a
conceptual spring-block model to explain tectonic earthquakes
by the frictional stick-slip behavior during the growth of faults.
Furthermore, the 31 August 1886 Charleston, South Carolina,
earthquake (Dutton, 1889b) happened during this period, and
Aguilera likely was informed about the study of this earthquake by the U.S. Geological Survey, which used facilities at the
Smithsonian Institution (Powell, 1889).
My review of the contemporary studies of the 1887 earthquake would be incomplete without documenting in more detail
the involvement by Clarence Edward Dutton (1841–1912), by
profession a Captain of Ordnance in the U.S. Army, who was
detailed to the U.S. Geological Survey. It is Dutton who asked
Goodfellow to conduct a field study of the 1887 earthquake in
Mexico (Dutton, 1904, p. 54), most likely after reading his 7
May 1887 letter to Science about the earthquake, and possibly
because by law the U.S. Geological Survey was not allowed to
use funds for research in Mexico (Dutton, 1889b, p. 165); the
Tombstone Daily Prospector reported on 9 May 1887 that “Dr.
Goodfellow is engaged in gathering data to be furnished to
the National Geological Society [sic], regarding the late earthquake.” Dutton also had distributed a large number of circulars requesting macroseismic information, and responses were
received to most of them (Dutton, 1889a, p. 165; see above).
In addition to Goodfellow’s report and the answers to the circulars, Dutton had also procured, at least in part, Aguilera’s
study through the State Department (editorial comment in
Science, 6 April 1888, p. 159). Based on a subsequent editorial in Science (13 April 1888, p. 171), “Capt. C. E. Dutton, of
the United States Geological Survey, is now engaged in writing his monograph on the Charleston earthquake … The same
volume will also contain a report on the Sonora earthquake,
very abundant material for which has been collected in those
portions of the United States to which the temblor extended.
Mr. Goodfellow’s report upon the phenomena of the epicentral
region of the disturbance in Sonora was all that was needed to
complete the desirable data. Both of these monographs will be
ready for the printer by June 1, and an effort will be made to
hasten their publication.” In early January 1889, Dutton visited
Tombstone and Bisbee, where he was guided by Goodfellow
(Tombstone Daily Prospector, 5 and 9 January 1889). However,
he did not visit the nearby surface rupture of the 1887 earthquake. His responsibilities had changed; he was now in charge
of the Irrigation Surveys of the United States (Dutton, 1904,
p. 54). In 1904, eight years years before his death, he considered it “not impossible that a coherent account of this highly
interesting and instructive occurrence may yet be wrought
out in scientific detail and published” (Dutton, 1904, p. 54).
Could Goodfellow’s report or the responses to the circulars be
preserved somewhere at the U.S. Geological Survey or in any
archive? Locating Goodfellow’s full report with its maps and
photographs would obviously provide information helpful in
the study of the 1887 Sonora earthquake. A search by DuBois
and Smith (1980, p. 17) was unsuccessful. The previously unpublished photographs of the surface rupture by Fly (Figures 6–10)
in the Steinbrugge Collection were taken in 1968 from prints
in possession of the late Wayne Winters, at that time editor of
the Tombstone Epitaph. The technical nature of the captions of
these photographs suggests that they were originally part of the
report about the earthquake authored by Goodfellow.
Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006 145
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The 3 May 1887 Mw 7.5 Sonora, Mexico, (Basin and Range
province) earthquake is likely to be the earliest earthquake
worldwide where tectonic surface faulting, previous displacement along the same fault, map-scale systems of subsidiary
Riedel-type shear fractures, and the near-surface direction of
rupture propagation were recognized as such and described in
detail. The independent observational studies of the epicentral
region in summer 1887 by José Guadalupe Aguilera Serrano
and George Emory Goodfellow, published in 1888 and littleknown today, merit recognition in reviews of the history of
earthquake geology and seismology. They include maps and
photographs (by Camillus Sidney Fly) of the surface rupture,
an isoseismal map, and the source parameters and speed of
propagation of the earthquake. These are the earliest maps and
photographs of an earthquake surface rupture and the earliest
isoseismal map of an earthquake in North America. Both
authors mapped the trace, 56 km long, of what is now known as
the Pitáycachi segment of the 1887 surface rupture and measured scarp heights. Goodfellow and Aguilera described the
surface rupture as having a sinuous trace parallel to the mountain front, with the western block downthrown. According to
both authors, the rupture scarp developed over its entire length
in alluvium and was characterized by a continuous crevice passing along its base. Goodfellow mentioned an exception at Cerro
Pitáycachi, where bedrock is cut off by the rupture and south of
the Bavispe River, where the trace passes within bedrock.
Previously unpublished 1887 photographs by Camillus Sidney
Fly document the fault scarp at these two and several other locations. Aguilera’s surface rupture map shows northward bifurcations of the rupture scarp at many places, from which he inferred
a northward direction of rupture propagation. Moreover,
Aguilera described systems of what he called second- and thirdorder ruptures, up to 3,000 m long, located within a 300-m
wide zone on either side of the main rupture and oriented like
Riedel shear fractures. Aguilera’s geologic mapping of the epicentral region allowed him to make an explicit connection
between the earthquake and tectonic faulting. He describes the
epicentral region, the transition zone between the plateau of
the Sierra Madre Occidental in the east and the lowlands near
the Gulf of California in the west as a large-scale staircase pattern, with the steep, fault-bounded side of the mountain ranges
always facing west. In his discussion of the probable cause of the
earthquake, he considered it most likely that the seismic vibrations were caused by the movement along a fault displacing the
Tertiary volcanic rocks, and whose trace is covered by Quaternary
sediments, which resulted from the continuous increase in the
weight of the Quaternary rocks overcoming the shear resistance
and the horizontal stress. Aguilera understood that faulting was
the primary earthquake process. It is likely that he was influenced by Gilbert (1884), who had introduced a conceptual
spring-block model to explain tectonic earthquakes by the
recurrent frictional stick-slip behavior during the growth of
faults.
I am thankful to Susan Hough for her review. The photographs
by Camillus S. Fly are courtesy of the Karl V. Steinbrugge
Collection, National Information Service for Earthquake
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. I am indebted
to Susan Fatemi for providing me with digital-image files of the
collection’s Fly photographs and a text file with their captions.
Financial and logistical support for this work came in part from
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) and
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT, grant
G33102-T).
REFERENCES
Agnew, C. D. (2002). History of seismology, in W. H. K. Lee, H.
Kanamori, P. C. Jennings, and C. Kisslinger (editors), International
Handbook of Earthquake & Engineering Seismology, San Diego,
CA: Academic Press, part A, 3–11; and file AgnewNotes.pdf on the
attached Handbook CD.
Aguilera, J. G. (1888). Estudio de los fenómenos séismicos del 3 de mayo
de 1887, Anales del Ministerio de Fomento de la República Mexicana
10, 5–56.
Aguilera, J. G. (1920). The Sonora earthquake of 1887, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 10, 31–44.
Beanland, S. and M. M. Clark (1994). The Owens valley fault zone, eastern California, and surface faulting associated with the 1872 earthquake, U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1982, 29 pp.
Brand, D. D. (1937). The natural landscape of northwestern Chihuahua,
The University of New Mexico Bulletin, Geological Series 5, 74 pp.
Chaput, D. (1996). Dr. Goodfellow, Physician to the Gunfighters, Scholar,
and Bon Vivant (Great West and Indian Series No. 66), Tucson, AZ:
Westernlore Press, 203 pp.
Cooper, E. S. (1989). C. S. Fly of Arizona: The life and times of a frontier
photographer, History of Photography 13, 31–47.
Darby, D. J. and S. Beanland (1992). Possible source models for the 1855
Wairarapa earthquake, New Zealand, Journal of Geophysical Research
97, 12,375–12,389.
Davison, C. (1927). The Founders of Seismology, Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 240 pp.
de Cserna, Z. (1990). La evolución de la geología en México (~1500–
1929), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de
Geología, Revista 9, 1–20.
DuBois, S. M. and A. W. Smith (1980). The 1887 Earthquake in San
Bernardino valley, Sonora, State of Arizona, Bureau of Geology and
Mineral Technology, Special Paper 3, 112 pp.
DuBois, S. M., A. W. Smith, N. K. Nye, and T. A. Nowak Jr. (1982).
Arizona earthquakes, 1776–1980, State of Arizona, Bureau of
Geology and Mineral Technology, Bulletin 193, 456 pp.
Dutton, C. E. (1887). The Charleston earthquake, Science 10, 35–36.
Dutton, C. E. (1889a). Administrative report, U. S. Geological Survey,
Eighth Annual Report 1886–87, 156–165.
Dutton, C. E. (1889b). The Charleston earthquake of 31 August, 1886, U.
S. Geological Survey, Ninth Annual Report 1887–88, 203–528.
Dutton, C. E. (1904). Earthquakes in the Light of the New Seismology,
New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 314 pp.
Gilbert, G. K. (1884). A theory of the earthquakes of the Great Basin,
with a practical application, American Journal of Science 27, 49–53.
Goodfellow, G. E. (1887a). The Sonora earthquake, Science 9, 483–484.
Goodfellow, G. E. (1887b). The Sonora earthquake, Science 10, 81–82.
Goodfellow, G. E. (1888). The Sonora earthquake, Science 11, 162–166.
Herd, D.G. and C. R. McMasters (1982). Surface faulting in the Sonora,
Mexico earthquake of 1887, Geological Society of America, Abstracts
with Programs 14, 172.
146 Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006
Holden, E. S. (1887). List of recorded earthquakes in California, Lower
California, Oregon, and Washington Territory, Sacramento, CA:
California State Office, 78 pp.
Natali, S. G., and M. L. Sbar (1982). Seismicity in the epicentral region
of the 1887 northeastern Sonora earthquake, Mexico, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 72, 181–196.
Orozco y Berra, J. (1887). Efemérides séismicas Mexicanas, Memorias de
la Sociedad Científica Antonio Alzate (Mexico) 1, 303–541.
Orozco y Berra, J. (1888). Efemérides séismicas Mexicanas, adiciones y
rectificaciones, Memorias de la Sociedad Científica Antonio Alzate
(Mexico) 2, 261–288.
Powell, J. W. (1889). Eighth annual report of the United States Geological
Survey, 1886–87, part 1, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 474 pp.
Richter, C. F. (1958). Elementary Seismology, San Francisco, CA: W. H.
Freeman and Company, 768 pp.
Rowe, J. (1997). Photographers in Arizona, 1850–1920, A History &
Directory, Nevada City, CA: Carl Mautz Publishing, 126 pp.
Rubinovich Kogan, R., M. Aguilera Levy, C. de Luna Moreno, and C.
Block Iturriaga (1991). José Guadalupe Aguilera Serrano, datos
biográficos y bibliografía anotada, Instituto de Geología, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México and Instituto de Investigaciones en
Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Autónoma de Hidalgo, 116 pp.
Sbar, M. L. and S. M. DuBois (1984). Attenuation of intensity for the 1887
northern Sonora, Mexico earthquake, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 74, 2,613–2,628.
Smith, C. C. (1970). Emilio Kosterlitzky, Eagle of Sonora and the Southwest
Border, Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clarke Company, 344 pp.
Sterry Hunt, T. and J. Douglas (1887). The Sonora earthquake of May 3,
1887, Nature 36, 572.
Sterry Hunt, T. and J. Douglas (1888a). The Sonora earthquake of May 3,
1887, The American Naturalist 22, 1,104–1,106.
Sterry Hunt, T. and J. Douglas (1888b). The Sonora earthquake of May 3,
1887, Transactions of the Seismological Society of Japan 12, 29–31.
Suter, M. (2001). The historical seismicity of northeastern Sonora and
northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico (28-32° N, 106-111° W), Journal
of South American Earth Sciences 14, 521–532.
Suter, M. (2006). The first geologic map of Sonora, submitted to Boletín
de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana.
Suter, M. and J. Contreras (2002). Active tectonics of northeastern
Sonora, Mexico (southern Basin and Range province) and the 3 May
1887 MW = 7.4 earthquake, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 92, 581–589.
Truett, S. (2004). Transnational warrior: Emilio Kosterlitzky and the
transformation of the U.S.–Mexico borderlands, 1873–1928, in S.
Truett and E. Young (editors), Continental Crossroads: Remapping
U.S.–Mexico Borderland History, Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 241–270.
Van Orden, J. (1989). C. S. Fly at Cañón de los Embudos, American
Indians as enemy in the field, a photographic first, Journal of Arizona
History 30, 319–346.
Vaughan, T. (1989). C. S. Fly, Pioneer Photojournalist, Journal of Arizona
History 30, 303–318.
Walker, H. P., and D. Bufkin (1986). Historical Atlas of Arizona, 2nd ed.,
Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Wells, D. L. and K. J. Coppersmith (1994). New empirical relationships
among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and
surface displacement, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
84, 974–1002.
Whitney, J. D. (1872). The Owen’s valley earthquake, Overland Monthly
9, 130–140 and 266–278.
Yeats, R. S., K. Sieh, and C. R. Allen (1997). The Geology of Earthquakes,
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 568 pp.
Instituto de Geología
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Estación Regional del Noroeste
Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico
SuterMax@aol.com
Seismological Research Letters Volume 77, Number 2 March/April 2006 147