Am J Primatol. 2019;e23040. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ajp © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1 of 10 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23040 Received: 29 August 2018 | Revised: 30 July 2019 | Accepted: 31 July 2019 DOI: 10.1002/ajp.23040 RESEARCH ARTICLE Complex patterns of grooming and sexual activity in Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) Stanislav Lhota 1,2 | Veronika Roubová 3 | Vendula Gregorová 3 | Martina Konečná 3 1 Department of Animal Science and Food Processing, Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic 2 Ústí nad Labem Zoo, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic 3 Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic Correspondence Martina Konečná, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branišovská 1760, 37005 České Budějovice, Czech Republic. Email: konecnam@prf.jcu.cz Funding information Grant Agency of University of South Bohemia, Grant/Award Number: 04‐151/2016/P; Czech‐Austrian Aktion Program for Cooperation in Science and Education, Grant/ Award Numbers: Project 50p13, Project 53p6 Abstract Grooming in primates is often considered a “currency” that can be exchanged for other “services” or “commodities” such as reciprocal grooming, coalitionary support, infant handling, tolerance around food sources, active food sharing, or mating opportunities. Previous studies on primate grooming‐for‐sex exchange viewed the males as the demanding class, with the females as suppliers of mating opportunities. In this study, we examine the broader context of grooming‐for‐mating exchange in Barbary macaques in Gibraltar. Our data show that Barbary macaque males groom females with whom they are mating more frequently and for longer periods than other females, and the relationship between grooming and mating remains significant in both sexual and nonsexual contexts. In addition, females groomed males with whom they were mating more frequently and for longer periods than other males. In both sexes, grooming was observed to be far more frequent and to occur for longer durations in sexual compared to nonsexual contexts. We did not find any difference in grooming behavior between presexual and postsexual contexts. Our data suggest that there is no simple model to describe Barbary macaque grooming patterns in sexual contexts. Although our results are partly consistent with male use of grooming as payment for mating, broadly assessed grooming‐mating patterns cannot be solely explained by a male‐driven grooming‐for‐mating exchange. KEYWORDS exchange, grooming, male–female relationship, mating, sexual activity 1 | INTRODUCTION Social grooming is one of the most common forms of affiliative behavior among various animals, and one which has been particularly frequently observed and studied in primates (Dunbar, 1991; Schino, 2001; Sparks, 1967). It is widely accepted that grooming in many if not most primates serves both hygienic and social functions (Dunbar, 1991). The hygienic function lies in the removal of dirt, dead skin and ectoparasites, and maintaining the pelage in good condition and in a functional state (McFarland et al., 2016; Sparks, 1967). However, there is less consensus among authors as to the social function of grooming (Cooper & Bernstein, 2000; Dunbar, 2010; Guan et al., 2013; Lehmann, Korstjens, & Dunbar, 2007). The biological market model (Noë & Hammerstein, 1994) provides a framework to explain the social function of grooming. This model considers grooming as a “currency” that can be exchanged for other “services” or “commodities.” The hypothesis of behavioral exchange is consistent with the idea of dual‐function grooming: it is valuable per se due to its hygienic function, but it can be also used as a social tool to obtain other benefits. In primates, these commodities may include reciprocal grooming (Schino & Aureli, 2008), coalitionary support (Schino, di Sorrentino, & Tiddi, 2007; Ventura, Majolo, Koyama, Hardie, & Schino, 2006), infant handling (Gumert, 2007a; Muroyama, 1994; Yu, Xiang, Yao, Grueter, & Li, 2013), tolerance around food sources (Borgeaud & Bshary, 2015), active food sharing (de Waal, 1997), or mating opportunities (Gumert, 2007b).