I hope they are studying the pee pee out of these quakes...if the network is not very dense in this area I hope they quickly put out a portable network. Being Mexico, I don't know who "they" are...don't know if US scientists can run down there with a van full of seismometers or if it takes 3 months to get permits. Don't know if the Mexicans are set up to quickly put in an array. Seismologists might learn more about fluid flow, static and dynamic stress triggering (someone explain to me what dynamic stress triggering is..I mean a diffusion of stress that can be related to fluid flow (but does not have to be).(??).

One reason to study this sequence in depth is that a southern San Andreas quake might be triggered one day by a similar sequence in the Brawley zone, or by left-lateral quake on Salton Sea-area cross faults.

As a hobbyist of quakes, I think the M5+s are not done yet. Note that a 1 in 1000 of intensity 6 in 24 hours might be 1 in 200 in 10 days...and this is in Salton Trough: the probability would be higher in the area of the quakes..they may have gotten close to 6 in the epicentral area (??). (qualification: I have no expertise in this subject).

Glen...suggestion: I would worry less about depths and mechanisms of quakes and focus on where there might be an enhanced probability of a quake...some small region, or some fault. For larger quakes, depth is kind of meaningless...a M6 quake in this area is going to break the whole seismogenic depth, which is sort of set by the conditions there (in California, is between 10 (Parkfield) and 20 (Loma Prieta) km for base, and for 6+, is usually close to the surface (although Loma Prieta was a bit of an exception). In a geothermal area like Cerro Prieta, I suspect that normal slip quakes would tend to have smaller max magnituded than strike-slip quakes...because the strike-slip faults are longer.
Chris