No. 58. — 1907.] JOAN GIDEON LOTEN, F.R.S. 



261 



Willem van der Bruggen, evidently a son by a previous mar- 

 riage. After March 1756 his name disappears from the 

 records, and as his wife (Loten's daughter) died at Batavia 

 on the 15th May 1756, it is most likely that about that time 

 he accompanied her there. 



I have examined the impaled arms on Mrs. Loten's tomb- 

 stone at Wolvendaal church, and also the arms on that of 

 Jonkheer Francois van Beaumont depicted on page 16 of Lapi- 

 darium Zeylanicum. The heraldic tinctures not being denoted 

 on either of these stones by the conventional lines and dots 

 used for the purpose, I presume Mr. van Houten obtained the 

 tinctures he gives from some other source. The reproductions 

 in the Lap. Zeyl. are not very accurate, but yet they cannot be 

 said to be seriously at fault. The lion in the upper half of the 

 sinister impalement on the Loten tombstone and in the arms 

 of Francois van Beaumont certainly vary. There is an appar- 

 ent inaccuracy in both cases, because in neither of them is 

 the attitude of the animal in accordance with any prescribed 

 heraldic form. Comparing the two and making allowance for 

 the ignorance of the engraver, it would seem that either the 

 lion rampant or the lion passant (not guardant) was intended. 

 This is further proved by the crest over the latter shield, which 

 should be properly described as a demi-lion rampant. I 

 attach no importance to the variance in the form of the ship in 

 the two van Beaumont shields. A certain amount of latitude 

 is allowed in depicting from heraldic word blazons such 

 charges as these, and the ship in both cases may be taken to 

 represent the same charge. There being really no doubt that 

 Mrs. Loten belonged to the same family as the young noble- 

 man whose death is recorded in the tombstone on page 16 of 

 Lap. Zeyl., it would be interesting to know what relationship 

 he bore to Cornelis van Beaumont, the father of Mrs. Loten. 

 They appear to have been contemporaries. 



There is only one other point upon which I should wish to 

 touch, and that is, the reference to the Upper Merchant and 

 Chief Administrator Noel Anthony Lebeck, with whom Gover- 

 nor Loten is said to have " experienced great difficulties." 

 The Chief Administrator (Hoofd Administrates), it may be 

 mentioned, was the highest official next to the Governor at the 



