- © 2010 by the Seismological Society of America
The author, in Raghukanth (2010), has compiled an earthquake catalog for India and the neighboring region from various sources and used a clearly defined procedure for estimating the seismicity parameters. The obtained recurrence parameters were compared with that reported in the literature. Nath and Thingbaijam (2010, hereinafter NT) disagree with the methodology for deriving the spatial variation of seismicity parameters for India. NT's objections to the methodology are based on their theoretical interpretation and misunderstanding. I disagree with almost all of NT's comments but limit my reply to the following salient remarks.
I have clearly mentioned that the major portion of instrumentally located earthquakes come from the U.S. Geological Survey (http://neic.usgs.gov/) and India Meteorological Department (IMD) Web site (http:///www.imd.gov.in).
I agree with NT that magnitude conversion methodologies are regional in nature and incorrect conversions would yield erroneous results. No such equation has been established for Indian conditions. The magnitude conversion equations reported by Thingbaijam et al. (2008, 2009) are based on limited data and may be applicable to the northwestern and northeastern regions of India. Moreover these relations are not valid for magnitudes Mw > 6.5 due to sparse data. I used the popular magnitude conversion relations proposed by Idriss (1985 …