Skip to main content

DNA barcoding of the spider crab Menaethius monoceros (Latreille, 1825) from the Red Sea, Egypt



Most spider crab species inhabiting the Red Sea have not been characterized genetically, in addition to the variation and complexity of morphological identification of some cryptic species. The present study was conducted to verify the identification of two morphotypes of the spider crab Menaethius monoceros (Latreille, 1825) in the family Epialtidae Macleay, 1838, collected from the Red Sea, Egypt. DNA barcoding of two mitochondrial markers, cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) and 16S, was used successfully to differentiate between these morphotypes.


DNA barcoding and genetic analyses combined with morphological identification showed that the two morphotypes were clustered together with low genetic distances ranged from 1.1 to 1.7% COI and from 0.0 to 0.06% 16S. Hence, this morphological variation is considered as individual variation within the same species.


The present study successively revealed that genetic analyses are important to confirm the spider crab’s identification in case of morphological overlapping and accelerate the accurate identification of small-sized crab species. Also, DNA barcoding for spider crabs is important for better future evaluation and status records along the Red Sea coast.


The horny spider crab genus Menathius H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (Epialtidae Macleay, 1838) contains only two species: Menaethius monoceros (Latreille,1825) and Menaethius oriantalis (Sakai, 1969) [1,2,3]. They are common in the Indo-West Pacific extending from the Red Sea, Eastern Africa, and the Indian Ocean to Japan in the Pacific Ocean [1]. Recently, M. monoceros had its distribution extended and was recorded from the Mediterranean Sea by [4]. These species are known to inhabit weedy intertidal rocks in shallow waters [1, 2, 5, 6]. This genus can be distinguished by the following morphological characters: the presence of two small lobes or tubercles on the branchial margins, a small post-orbital lobe, propodi of the first walking leg is smooth ventrally, and with sexes similar in form. It is easy to differentiate M. monoceros from M. oriantalis by the presence of a slender rostrum, basally narrow; the dorsal branchial region has tubercles or rounded elevation; and walking legs are not carinate in M. monoceros. On the other hand, carinate walking legs are present in M. orientalis [1]. However, this genus has a geographical variation, as many authors have described several species which synonymized under M. monoceros [2] and listed by [7] treated in the list of Griffin and Tranter as synonyms [1].

Majidae is considered as a diverse group within brachyuran crabs, containing over 800 species, and was recently transferred to the superfamily Majoidea Samouelle, 1819 [3, 8,9,10]. Despite the revision of the majoid crabs by many authors [1,2,3, 11,12,13,14] throughout the Indo-West Pacific region and the list of [15] from the Arabian Gulf, some genera and species still have taxonomic confusion, and many workers have difficulty in identification using the keys within subfamilies to recognize the genera and species.

The eastern Egyptian coast of the Red Sea includes the eastern and western coasts of the Suez Gulf and the western Aqaba Gulf coast, with a total length of about 1300 km [16]. The Suez Gulf is considered as the boundary between Asia and Africa having an important role in the faunal migration between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea [17] via the Suez Canal. The coasts of the Red Sea are represented by several habitats: soft, rocky, and coral reef habitats. These different habitats comprise suitable substrates as refuges and preferable habitats for different marine invertebrates.

The crabs of the Red Sea were listed and reviewed by [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Other later workers reviewed the majoids [11] and listed 32 species, as well as accounts of Red Sea majoids by [1, 26] who listed 46 spider crab species within Majoidea including 12 species in the family Epialtidae: Acanthonyx elongatus Miers, 1877; A. dentatus H. Milne Edwards, 1834; Huenia heraldica (De Haan, 1837) [= Maja (Huenia) proteus De Haan, 1839]; Menaethiops contiguicornis (Klunzinger, 1906); M. dubius Balss, 1929; M. ninii Guinot, 1962; M. nodulosus (Nobili, 1905); Menaethius monoceros (Latreille, 1825); Perinia tumida Dana, 1851; Simocarcinus pyramidatus (Heller, 1861); S. simplex (Dana, 1852); and Xenocarcinus tuberculatus White, 1847.

The recent revisions of brachyuran crabs depending only on morphological descriptions have many issues [27, 28]. And therefore, the use of DNA barcoding can help accelerate the identification of confused and even cryptic species [27, 29]. Molecular phylogenetics is a valuable tool to study the morphological evolution of decapod crustaceans, which may reflect their behaviors and distributions [27, 30,31,32,33].

Furthermore, using mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I gene in molecular studies in crustacean’s taxonomy is useful for species delimitation [29, 34]. Besides COI, the 16S rRNA gene is commonly used in constructing animal phylogeny because of the combination of the variable and conserved region with the same gene [30]. Also, the sequence lengths obtained with these two markers are in the range of sequences available in the GenBank database. With this in mind, the present study applied the DNA barcoding information of the spider crab M. monoceros exclusively from the Red Sea, Egypt, and successfully used phylogenetic analyses to confirm two possible morphotypes.



A total of 20 specimens examined in the present study were collected from several locations across Red Sea Egyptian coasts: Hurghada (Marine Biology Station), Marsa Gabal El-Rosass, South Hammata, 9km north Marsa Alam, and south Bernis. Specimens were obtained attached to small weedy rocks in the shallow intertidal region.

The morphological identification followed [1, 35] and the key of Griffin and Tranter [2].

DNA analyses

DNA was extracted from pieces of walking leg tissue for each crab specimen using a Qiagen DNA extraction kit (Germany); the final observed DNA concentrations with Nanodrop measuring machine were 19.2–27.7 ng μl. PCR amplification of 16S and COI markers was performed with 20-μl PCR cocktail volumes using 40 cycles (20μl) of 94°C for 40 s (denaturation), 48°C for 70 s (annealing), and 72°C for 90 s (extension), run on a PCR thermal cycler. PCR products were observed on 1.5 % agarose gels. Subsequently, purification of the formed single-band PCR products was done using a mixture of shrimp alkaline phosphate (SAP) and exonuclease (EXO1) protocol (37° C for 20 min followed by 83°C for 30 min.). Sequences were obtained by sending the cleaned PCR products to FASMAC (Yokohama, Japan). The acquired sequences were assembled using Bioedit and aligned and analyzed using the Mega 7 program [36]. The evolutionary history was inferred using the neighbor-joining method [37]. The evolutionary distances were computed for CO1 sequences using the Tamura 3-parameter method [38] while for 16S sequences using the Kimura 2-parameter method [39]. All accession numbers of the sequences used in genetic analyses are listed in Table 1. COI and 16S genes were amplified using universal primer sets following [40, 41], respectively.

Table 1 GeneBank accession number for the present examined materials of M. monoceros from the Red Sea, Egypt, and other available sequences from ( GenBank


Systematic account

Epialtidae Macleay, 1838

Menaethius H. Milne Edwards, 1834

Menaethius monoceros (Latreille, 1825)


Pisa monoceros Latreille, 1825:139-140.

Menaethius monoceros. Alcock, 1895: p. 197. -Klunzinger, 1906: p. 20. -Balss, 1924: p. 27. -Urita, 1926: p. 32. -Sakai, 1934: p. 294; 1936: p. 91, pl. 21, fig. 3; 1938: p. 263, pl. XXVI fig. 3 -Forest and Guinot, 1961:14, fig. 9a & b. -Sakai, 1965: 74-75, pi. 33 fig. 4. -Griffin, 1974:21.

Materials examined

RCAZUE.Crus-Br.26151.13, four females, Hurghada, Marine Biology Station, Red Sea, Egypt, 27° 17′ 18.9″ N, 33° 45′ 46.6″ E, and other additional specimens previously collected during the period from April 1996 to February 1997 from the Red Sea Egyptian coasts are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Morphometric measurements for the examined materials of M. monoceros, Red Sea, Egypt


Despite the similarity between sexes in some characters for the genus Menaethius described by [2] and the agreement for some characters described by [35] especially in the rostrum (slender or some time bifurcated) which were similar to the present all specimens, there were two differences between the present specimens. We observed two morphotypes. The first morphotype consisted of two specimens (CL, 5.6 and 6.9) with slightly bifurcated rostrum in appearance and obtuse lobes or tubercles in the branchial margins versus the other morphotype (CL, 13.4 and 14.1) which had a rounded tip of the rostrum and obvious lobes or tubercles on the branchial margins. On the other hand, the comparison of all descriptions of synonymized names for M. monoceros includes a variety of morphological differences. Moreover, there is a variation in the morphology of this species across its geographical distribution [2], in addition to slight differences observed between two populations examined by [6] from two localities at the northern Red Sea. In addition, there has been a variation reported in carapace tuberculation in different sites (Figs. 1 and 2). All of these previous reasons make it difficult to accurately identify the morphotype of the present specimens, making DNA analyses important to reach a precise identification.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Two morphotypes of M. monoceros, 27° 17′ 18.9″ N, 33° 45′ 46.6″ E, Hurghada, Red Sea, Egypt. RCAZUE-Crus-Br.26151.13 (a, b Cl=13.4mm; ce Cl= 6.9mm)

Fig. 2
figure 2

M. monoceros. ad Dorsal surface of carapace. eh First male pleopod. a RCAZUE-Crus-Br.26151.07. b RCAZUE-Crus-Br.26151.06. c, e, f RCAZUE-Crus-Br.26151.03. d, g, h RCAZUE-Crus-Br.26151.05. Scale bars=1mm

Molecular results

The genetic analyses of the two markers used, 16S and COI (Figs. 3 and 4 and Tables 3 and 4), revealed that the two closely related morphotypes of M. monoceros showed slight genetic differences. The COI neighbor-joining tree separated the two morphotypes, but the genetic differences were only 1.1 to 1.7% (Table 3). As shown in Table 4, the genetic distance for 16S sequences between the two morphotypes was negligible, ranging from 0.0 to 0.6%. These results indicate that the genetic differences are not enough to separate these morphotypes into different species based on a cutoff OTU threshold of 97% [42], and thus, I consider this variation as individual variation within the same species.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Evolutionary relationships of selected taxa sequences with COI using the Neighbor-Joining method with a bootstrap test (1000 replicates). Evolutionary distances were computed using the Tamura 3-parameter method; the rate variation among sites was modeled with a gamma distribution (shape parameter = 1)

Fig. 4
figure 4

Evolutionary relationships of taxa sequences with 16S marker using the Neighbor-Joining method with a bootstrap test (1000 replicates). Evolutionary distances were computed using the Kimura 2-parameter method; the rate variation among sites was modeled with a gamma distribution (shape parameter = 1)

Table 3 Pairwise genetic distances between the studied specimens’ sequences compared with the sequences obtained from GenBank COI sequences of M. monoceros
Table 4 Pairwise genetic distances between the studied specimens’ sequences compared with the sequences obtained from GenBank 16S sequences of M. monoceros


The present specimens were observed and obtained from weedy shallow intertidal small rocks at depths of 0–2m.

Life coloration

Larger specimens have a gray color on the legs and branchial regions with light orange color on the hepatic and cardiac prominence, but the smaller specimens are white to creamy all over the carapace and legs.


Red Sea, throughout the Indo-West Pacific from South Africa to Japan, Australia, and Tahiti, recently recorded from the Mediterranean Sea.


Two or more species imprecisely classified or distinguished morphologically under one species name usually called cryptic species [43]. Moreover, the great diversity among the Indo-West Pacific fauna of majoid crabs was treated morphologically by [1, 2]. Despite the provided key by Grifin and Tranter, many problems still face many workers in the identification of majoid crabs, and as such, this confusion has caught the attention of many workers [12,13,14].

The genus Menaethius has a variation in characters described by [35] in between its only two species (M. monoceros and M. oriantalis). The dorsal surface of carapace is mounted with a variable number of tubercles on the gastric and cardiac regions, the male pseudorostrum is usually relatively longer than females, and the tip is somewhat rounded and sometimes bifurcated. The branchial margins often have two teeth and sometimes with numerous tubercles. Some variation of the previous characters was also observed in the present studied specimens (Figs. 1 and 2) which leads to doubtful morphological identification and needs confirmation with genetic analyses.

It is known that delimitation of single species for discovering new species is a modern topic of discussion in systematics [44]. Thus, DNA barcoding for animal species is considered as a somewhat new and important taxonomic tool [45]. Moreover, DNA barcoding can speed the morphological identification of described species [28]. The present study investigated four specimens resembling the original description with variation in some characters and appearance of two morphotypes. Molecular analyses showed that the genetic distance difference between them ranged from 0.6 to 1.7% (Tables 3 and 4), which is low and not enough to separate them into different species. However, the genetic differences in the distance between the present studied specimen’s sequences from those from Shimoda, Japan (EU682804, EU682856), obtained from GenBank ranged between 1.4 and 2.1%, for 16S marker and between 1.42 and 4.8% in COI. These larger differences may be attributed to the geographical variation between both populations (Red Sea versus Pacific). Finally, DNA barcoding proved to increase the identification speed of small crab species, and thus, we consider it has a potential to be an important tool combined with morphology in taxonomic studies.


Most small-sized crab species inhabiting the Red Sea and associated with seaweeds are difficult to identify morphologically, and thus, the present study used two DNA markers to confirm the identity of two morphotypes of the spider crab Menaethius monoceros. DNA barcoding and phylogeny revealed that there was a variation within the same species. Also, the present study provides baseline DNA data for one species inhabiting the Red Sea, which has recently been reported as migrated to the Mediterranean Sea. Our data will be important in further future investigations.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are presented in the article and additional genetic data (sequences) available and deposited in the GenBank with an accession number.



Carapace length


Carapace width


Rostrum length


Abdominal width


Cytochrome oxidase subunit I


Ribosomal subunit rRNA


  1. Griffin DJG, Tranter HA (1974) Spider crabs of the family Majidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura) from the Red Sea. Israel J Zool. 23:162–198

    Google Scholar 

  2. Griffin DJG, Tranter HA (1986) The Decapoda Brachyura of the Siboga expedition, part VIII. Majidae. Siboga-Expeditie Monograph. 39(C4). Livraision. 148:1–335

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ng PKL, Guinot D, Davie PJF (2008) Systema Brachyurorum: part I. An annotated checklist of extant brachyuran crabs of the world. Raffles B Zool 17:1–286

    Google Scholar 

  4. Falciai L (2002) First record of Menaethius monoceros (Latreille, 1825) (Decapoda, Majidae) in the central Tyrrhenian Sea. Crust. 75(10):1279–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sakai T (1969) Two new genera and twenty-two new species of crabs from Japan. Proc biol Soc Wash 82:243–280 text figs. 1–20, pls. 1–2

    Google Scholar 

  6. El-Sayed AA (1997) The biology of spider crab, Menaethius monoceros from the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba, Egypt. Egy J Aqua Biol Fish 1(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sakai T (1976) Crabs of Japan and the adjacent seas: i-xxix, 1-773, 1-461, 1-16, maps 3, text figs. 1-379, pls. 1-251. (Kodansha, Tokyo)

  8. Hendrickx ME (1995) Checklist of brachyuran crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda) from the eastern tropical Pacific. Med K Belg Inst Nat Wet. 65:125–150

    Google Scholar 

  9. Martin JW, Davis GE (2001) An updated classification of the recent Crustacea. Sci Ser Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles County 39(i–vii):1–124

    Google Scholar 

  10. McLaughlin PA, Camp DK, Angel MV et al (2005) Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: crustaceans. Am. Fish Soc Sp Publ. 31:1–545

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guinot D (1966) Recherches préliminaires sur les groupements naturels chez les Crustacés Décapodes Brachyoures. I. Les affinités des genres Aethra, Osachila, Hepatus, Hepatella et Actaeomorpha. Bull Mus Natl d’Histoire Nat Paris 2(38(5)):744–762

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ng PKL (1998) Crabs. In: Carpenter KE, Niem VH (eds) FAO Species identification guide for fishery purposes. The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific. Volume 2. Cephalopods, crustaceans, holothurians and sharks. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, pp 1045–1155

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ng PKL, Wang CH, Ho PH, Shih HT (2001) An annotated checklist of brachyuran crabs from Taiwan (Crustacea: Decapoda), National Taiwan Museum Special Publication Series, vol 11, pp 1–86

    Google Scholar 

  14. Davie PJF (2002) Crustacea: Malacostraca. Eucarida (part 2). Decapoda – Anomura, Brachyura: In Zoological catalogue of Australia. (Eds A. Wells and W. W. K. Houston.) 19.3B. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. pp 641

  15. Naderloo R (2017) Atlas of crabs of the Persian Gulf. Environment : Marine & Freshwater Sciences, Springer Nature, Germany

  16. Head SM (1987) Introduction. In: Edwards AJ, Head SM (eds) Key environments: the Red Sea. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Por FD (1978) Lessepsian migration. The influx of Red Sea biota into the Mediterranean by way of the Suez Canal. Springer Verlag, Berlin

  18. Heller C (1861) Synopsis der im Rothen Meere vorkommenden Crustaceen. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, vol 11, pp 3–32

    Google Scholar 

  19. Paulson O M (1875) Investigations on the Crustacea of the Red Sea with notes on Crustacea of the adjacent seas. Part. I. Podophthalmata and Edriophthalmata (Cumacea). Kiev, Kul’zhenko, i-xiv -t 1-144, pl. 1-21

  20. Klunzinger CB (1906) Die Spitz- und Spitzmundkrabben (Oxyrhyncha und Oxystomata) des Roten Meeres, Stuttgart, vol 91, p VII

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nobili G (1906) Faune carcinologique de la Mer Rouge. Decapodes et Stomatopodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie) 9e série. 4:1–347, figs. 1–12, pls. 1–11

  22. Laurie RD (1915) On the Brachyura. Reports on the marine biology of the Sudanese Red Sea, from collections made by Cyril Crossland, M.A., B. Sc., F.Z.S., XXI. J Linnaean Soc (London) Zool 31(209):407–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Balss H (1929) Expedition S. M. Schiff Pola in das Rote Meer. Nordliche und sudliche Halfte 1895/96-1897/98. Zool. Ergebn, 36. Decapoden des Roten Meeres, 4. Oxyrhyncha und Schlussbetrachtungen. Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien (math-nat.), 102: 1–30

  24. Guinot D (1962) Surune collection de Crustaces decapodes brachyoures de Mer Rouge et de Somalie. Boll Mus Civ Stor Nat Venezia 15:7–63

    Google Scholar 

  25. Guinot D (1962) Sur une collection de Crustaces decapodes brachyoures des iles Maldives et de Mer Rouge (Expedition Xarifa 1957-1958). Kieler Meeresforsch 18:231–244

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vine P (1986) Red Sea invertebrates. IMMEL publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  27. Plaisance L, Knowlton N, Paulay G, Meyer C (2009) Reef-associated crustacean fauna: biodiversity estimates using semi-quantitative sampling and DNA barcoding. Coral Reefs. 28(4):977–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, DeWaard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc Lond. 270(1512):313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Costa FO, deWaard JR, Boutillier J, Ratnasingham S, Dooh RT, Hajibabaei M, Hebert PDN (2007) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes: the case of the Crustacea. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 64(2):272–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schubart CD, Neigle JE, Felder DL (2000) Use of the mitochondrial 16SrDNA gene for phylogenetic and population studies of Crustacea. Crust Issues 12:817–830

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kitaura J, Nishida M, Wada K (2006) The evolution of social behavior in sentinel crabs (Macrophthalmus): implications from molecular phylogeny. Biol J Linn Soc. 88(1):45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Macdonald KS, Rios R, Duffy JE (2006) Biodiversity, host specificity, and dominance by eusocial species among sponge-dwelling alpheid shrimp on the Belize Barrier Reef. Divers Distrib. 12(2):165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Porter ML, Cronin TW, McClellan DA, Crandall KA (2007) Molecular characterization of Crustacean visual pigments and the evolution of Pancrustacean opsins. Mol Biol Evol. 24(1):253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lefébure T, Douady CJ, Gouy M, Gibert J (2006) Relationship between morphological taxonomy and molecular divergence within Crustacea: proposal of a molecular threshold to help species delimitation. Mol Phyl Evol. 40(2):435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sakai T (1938) Studies on the crabs of Japan, 3. Brachygnatha Oxyrhyncha: 193-364, figs. 1-55, pis. 20-41. (Yokendo Co., Tokyo)

  36. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K (2016) MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol. 33(7):1870–1874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 4(4):406–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tamura K (1992) Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions when there are strong transition-transversion and G + C-content biases. Mol Biol Evol. 9(4):678–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 16(2):111–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol. 3(5):294–299

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mathews LM, Anker A (2009) Molecular phylogeny reveals extensive ancient and ongoing radiations in a snapping shrimp species complex (Crustacea, Alpheidae, Alpheus armillatus). Mol Phyl Evol. 50(2):268–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang J, Kapli P, Pavlidis P, Stamatakis A (2013) A general species delimitation method with applications to phylogenetic placements. Bioinformatics. 29(22):2869–2876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bickford D, Lohman D, Sodhi N, Ng P, Meier R, Winker K, Ingram K (2007) Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 22(3):148–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sites JW Jr, Marshall JC (2003) Delimiting species: a Renaissance issue in systematic biology, Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:462–470

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tautz D, Arctander P, Minelli A, Thomas RH, Vogler AP (2003) A plea for DNA taxonomy, Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:70–74

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The author is very grateful to Professor Tohru Naruse and the management staff of Iriomote Station, Tropical Biosphere Research Center, and Professor James Davis Riemer, Faculty of Science, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan, for hosting, helping, and providing all laboratory facilities used in the present study during the period February to August 2018. Also, the author is grateful to Professor Awaad A. M. El-Sayed for providing additional specimens, collected during the period from April 1996 to February 1997, and Egyptian Red Sea coasts for further morphological examination.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Abdelnaser Amer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The author declares that there are no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amer, M.A. DNA barcoding of the spider crab Menaethius monoceros (Latreille, 1825) from the Red Sea, Egypt. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 19, 42 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: