This paper, a continuation of previous investigations by Gutenberg and Richter, focuses on refining the relationship between earthquake magnitude and energy. The authors discuss the use of different magnitude scales—$M_L$ (local), $M_S$ (surface waves), and $m_B$ (body waves)—and their adjustments to a unified magnitude $m$. They revise the relationship between $M_S$ and $m_B$ to $m_B = 0.63 \, M_S + 2.5 = M_S - 0.37 \, (M_S - 6.76)$, based on extensive data. The unified magnitude $m$ is derived from the amplitude/period ratio of maximum waves and is recommended for teleseismic events, while $M_L$ remains useful for local earthquakes. The paper also presents a revised empirical equation for the magnitude-energy relation, tentatively expressed as $\log E = 5.8 + 2.4 \, m$. The authors emphasize the importance of consistent data and the need for detailed reporting of amplitude and period readings to improve the accuracy of magnitude determinations.This paper, a continuation of previous investigations by Gutenberg and Richter, focuses on refining the relationship between earthquake magnitude and energy. The authors discuss the use of different magnitude scales—$M_L$ (local), $M_S$ (surface waves), and $m_B$ (body waves)—and their adjustments to a unified magnitude $m$. They revise the relationship between $M_S$ and $m_B$ to $m_B = 0.63 \, M_S + 2.5 = M_S - 0.37 \, (M_S - 6.76)$, based on extensive data. The unified magnitude $m$ is derived from the amplitude/period ratio of maximum waves and is recommended for teleseismic events, while $M_L$ remains useful for local earthquakes. The paper also presents a revised empirical equation for the magnitude-energy relation, tentatively expressed as $\log E = 5.8 + 2.4 \, m$. The authors emphasize the importance of consistent data and the need for detailed reporting of amplitude and period readings to improve the accuracy of magnitude determinations.