Sir,We read with interest the case report on male cloaca.[1] We are happy that the authors could identify and appreciate this anomaly. We would like to throw further insights into the entity. We were the first ones to identify this condition as a single opening in the perineum for passage of urine and meconium in a male, give the terminology of male cloaca and discuss this anomaly at an International conference, the 19th Colorectal Club meeting at Rome in 2012.[2] There was a lot of discussion on this new entity that had not been seen, appreciated earlier or discussed by eminent pediatric colorectal surgeons. A personal friend, Tahmina Banu, who was also present at the meeting also acknowledged and correlated that they had seen similar cases of this rare anomaly. Banu et al. subsequently reviewed their cases and published the same in 2013.[3] We again presented our series of seven similar cases in the colorectal meeting of 2015 and coined the term male cloaca for them.[4] There was again a heated discussion among the eminent delegates including Alberto Pena who were awed of seeing a new rare anomaly. The presentation was appreciated with a positive feedback from various other pediatric surgeons who agreed to the existence of the anomaly just by the self-explanatory clinical photographs. The resultant manuscript submitted during the conference was thus accepted and published in PSI as a new entity “male cloaca” which we proposed to be added into the rare variants of anorectal malformation as per the Krickenbeck Classification.[4] We had modestly searched the literature and acknowledged all those who had reported similar findings in fetuses. Prof. DK Gupta was also invited for a guest lecture on rare variants of the anorectal malformations at the Colorectal meeting at Prague in 2016. From the case report published, we find that there is no change in the definition mentioned as compared to the one as described by us. Rather, it seems that the authors could diagnose the single case based on the knowledge acquired from our paper. We have identified two more cases of male cloaca after 2015 and thus have an experience of nine cases now. We expect this entity will be more commonly identified and diagnosed from our Indian subcontinent. Thus, we request the readers to kindly refer to such an anomaly in future as a male cloaca to avoid any confusion in terminology and to uniformly contribute evidence to literature.