Other sources only mention the portrait, but answers to this question question whether a portrait of Hooke even existed.
As does the Royal Society itself, despite quoting a visitor that mentioned Hooke's portrait. The visitor might have meant the portrait of Theodore Haak:
But before we pronounce Newton guilty of destroying Royal Society
property, we need to consider the fundamental question of whether a
portrait of Hooke existed in the first place. None of the evidence on
this point is really conclusive. There are two pieces of evidence to
suggest there was a portrait. The first comes from Hooke’s diary, or
memorandum book, in which he recorded his daily life in some detail
for long periods from the 1670s to 1690s. In an entry for 16 October
1674 he wrote ‘At Garaways. Left off taking tobacco — Mr Bonust drew
picture.’ Garaways was a coffee-house much visited by Hooke, but ‘Mr
Bonust’ is a rather mysterious figure who only appears once in the
diary. The first editors of the diary suggested that this was one
‘Bownest’, whose portrait of ejected minister Arthur Jacksonis housed
in the National Portrait Gallery in the form of an engraving by David
Loggan. Hooke was interested in art, and visited various painters,
including Mary Beale, who painted his friend and colleague Robert
Boyle, and the miniaturist Mary Moore, mother of Hooke’s friend
Richard Waller(himself an accomplished artist). However if Mr Bownest
did draw Hooke’s picture in 1674, this is the only reference Hooke
made to it.
The second piece of evidence is a description of a visit to the Royal
Society’s premises in 1710 by a German traveller, Zacharias Conrad von
Uffenbach. Like many other scientifically-minded travellers of the
day, von Uffenbach was keen to see the famous Royal Society – but the
reality was a severe disappointment for him. After being shown the
Repository and meeting rooms at Gresham College, he wrote dismissively
in his travel-journal,
“the finest instruments and other articles [lie] . . . not only in no
sort of order or tidiness but covered with dust, filth and coal-smoke,
and many of them broken and utterly ruined. If one inquires after
anything, the operator who shows strangers round . . . will usually
say: ‘A rogue had it stolen away’, or he will show you pieces of it,
saying: ‘It is corrupted or broken’; and such is the care they take of
things! . . . Finally we were shown the room where the Society usually
meets. It is very small and wretched and the best things there are the
portraits of its members, of which the most noteworthy are those of
Boyle and Hoock.”
Von Uffenbach, a foreign visitor briefly shown the Society’s meeting
room, is the only person to make such a reference to Hooke’s portrait.
James Yonge, who visited the Society in November 1702 and was elected
FRS at the time, recorded seeing ‘divers original pictures’ in the
Council Room. He listed eleven portraits, including those of Robert
Boyle and Theodore Haak, but Hooke’s was not among them. It seems
unlikely that Yonge would have overlooked Hooke’s picture if it was
there. Hooke was Yonge’s first contact at the Society: the two men had
corresponded for many years and Yonge referred to Hooke in his journal
as ‘my old friend’.
Other sources in which we might expect to find a mention of Hooke’s
portrait are curiously silent on the subject. The inventory of Hooke’s
possessions after his death does not include a portrait. Richard
Waller, who wrote the first biography of Hooke in the preface to his
edition of Hooke’s papers, printed two years after Hooke’s death,
never mentioned a portrait. Neither did Hooke’s second posthumous
editor, William Derham. And if a portrait did exist, there is no
evidence that it was given to the Royal Society. The minutes of the
Society’s meetings, in which gifts such as portraits were often (but
not always!) recorded, say nothing about a portrait of Hooke, and
neither do any other lists of donations in the period. Hooke himself,
who was very protective of his scientific reputation and prestige,
never spoke of donating his own portrait to the Society.
The absence of any corroborating evidence must cast some doubt on von
Uffenbach’s claim to have seen a portrait of Hooke at Gresham
Collegein 1710. Was he shown Theodore Haak’s portrait and misheard the
name? Hooke was the more famous Fellow and von Uffenbach may have
assumed the Society had his portrait. I think we can say that although
Hooke may have had his picture taken, it is unlikely to have been
hanging in the Society’s meeting room at Gresham College. And Newton?
He’s definitely off the hook.
...despite stating earlier that none of the evidence is conclusive, the Royal Society concludes with a definite. Also lending credence to Uffenbach's claim that property was lost (presumably including sketches), is that the article links to Theodore Haak are dead.
