The nose, eyes and brow
Nose length, width and profile angles by population, interpupillary distance by age and sex, and male-female differences at the brow and orbit. Every figure attributed.
Contents
3 steps in order, lit one after another by a travelling dot: n, nasion, Bridge root, where nose meets forehead; prn, pronasale, Most anterior point of the nasal tip; sn, subnasale, Base of the columella, under the nose.
Nose
Horizontal bars grow from a zero line, one per row. Caucasian (reference), nose length: 53.0 mm; Chinese, nose length: 53.5 mm; Northern Italian, nose length: 54.3 mm; Afro-American, nose length: 52.4 mm; Turkish young male, total nasal length: 56.9 mm; Indian female, n-prn: 41.3 mm; Indonesian female, n-sn: 52.8 ± 3.4 mm. The measurements are not the same landmark pair.
Landmarks: n nasion (bridge root) · prn pronasale (tip) · sn subnasale (base of columella) · al alare (widest wing) · ac alar crease
Size - and why the numbers disagree
The nose has the most population spread of any feature, and also the most measurement confusion. Two families of number float around: n-sn / n-prn length (vertical and diagonal length) and alar width. Reported means for “nose length” range from ~41 mm to ~57 mm across studies, largely because of landmark choice as much as population:[2]
| Population | Value | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Caucasian (ref.) | 53.0 mm | nose length |
| Chinese | 53.5 mm | nose length |
| Northern Italian | 54.3 mm | nose length |
| Afro-American | 52.4 mm | nose length |
| Turkish (young male) | 56.9 mm | total nasal length |
| Indian (female) | 41.3 mm | nasal length, n-prn |
| Indonesian (Deutero Malay, F)[3] | 52.8 ± 3.4 mm | nasal height, n-sn |
Reported nasal length / height by study (definitions vary - read as indicative)[2]
Sources: cross-study comparison in the Indian rhinoplasty anthropometry paper[2] and the Indonesian 3D reference set.[3]
Width & the nasal index
The nasal index = (alar width ÷ nasal height) × 100 classifies nose form better than absolute width, because it normalises for face size. The classic classes run from leptorrhine (tall, narrow) through mesorrhine to platyrrhine (broad, flat); cut-offs differ between authors and none are tabulated here.
Width reference values: white women 31.4 ± 2.0 · Korean-American 35.5 ± 3.4 · Chinese 39.2 · Japanese 36.3 · Afro-American 43.5 · African 45.9 mm.[2][3]
Projection - angles & ratios
Profile aesthetics are governed by a small set of angles and ratios. These are the angles with published normal ranges:
| Measure | Normal range | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Nasofacial angle | 30-40° | glabella→pogonion vs nasion→tip |
| Nasofrontal angle | 115-130° | forehead vs nasal dorsum |
| Nasomental angle | 120-132° | nasion→tip vs tip→pogonion |
| Nasolabial angle | 90-120° | columella vs upper lip; the source calls the more obtuse end more favourable in women and the more acute end in men |
| Goode ratio | 0.55-0.60 (ideal 0.60) | tip length ÷ nasal length[4] |
| Tip projection (Byrd) | ≈⅔ nasal length (ideal 0.67) | generalises across racial groups[5] |
Nasal profile: normal ranges[4]
Sex & population in the profile
- Size: male noses run larger on average - around 4 mm more on the alar-to-tip distances in one large study.[6]
- Tip direction: female tips tend upturned; male tips sag/droop slightly, with a straighter, higher-radix dorsum.[1]
- Projection by group: Caucasian and Middle-Eastern noses carry the most nasolabial tip projection; African-American noses read under-projected on nasolabial lines but ideal against nasofacial ones - the contrast is as much about lip and midface projection as the nose itself.[5]
Eyes & interorbital distance
Range strips on one scale from 45 to 80 mm, each with a mean tick, a solid band at plus or minus one standard deviation and a pale band at plus or minus two. 20-30 yr 60.3 ± 3.7; 31-50 yr 63 ± 3.6; 51-70 yr 63.8 ± 4.1; 71-89 yr 62.7 ± 4.1.
Landmarks: p pupil centre · en endocanthion (inner corner) · ex ectocanthion (outer corner)
Interpupillary distance (IPD) sets eye spacing and scales with the orbit and face. It grows through childhood and early adulthood, then plateaus and shrinks slightly in old age.
| Group | Female | Male | Total mean | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20-30 yr | 59.2 | 61.5 | 60.3 ± 3.7 | 49-70 |
| 31-50 yr | 62.0 | 64.5 | 63.0 ± 3.6 | 55-72 |
| 51-70 yr | 62.3 | 65.7 | 63.8 ± 4.1 | 52-76 |
| 71-89 yr | 62.1 | 63.1 | 62.7 ± 4.1 | 49-74 |
| Adult benchmark | ≈63 mm average · males ~2-3 mm wider | 50-75 | Turkish cohort, n≈756[7] |
Interpupillary distance (mm), by age and sex[7]
Related spacing measures
- Intercanthal distance (inner-corner to inner-corner). A common rule of thumb is that the alar base width equals it.
- Canthal tilt - the outer corner sitting above the inner (positive) reads as feminine and youthful; level or negative reads masculine.
- Orbital shape: females trend toward a rounder orbital aperture, males toward a squarer, deeper-set rim.[8]
Brow & forehead
Horizontal bars grow from a zero line, one per row. Glabella forward: 1.60 mm; Glabella down: 1.43 mm; Orbitale (rim) back: 1.90 mm; Glabella wider: ≈ 10.5 mm. Male compared with female.
Landmarks: g glabella (brow bridge) · so supraorbital rim · bregma top-front of skull
The upper third is one of the strongest perceived-gender regions: observers read masculinity from glabellar and supraorbital prominence, frontal-bone thickness and orbital shape. On average, males project at the glabella and slope away above it; females have a flatter, more vertical forehead with a smaller brow ridge.
| Feature | Direction in males | Magnitude |
|---|---|---|
| Glabella position | anterior + inferior to women | 1.60 mm forward · 1.43 mm down |
| Glabella width | wider | ≈ +10.5 mm |
| Nasofrontal angle | more acute | ≈ 14.5° sharper large claim |
| Orbitale (rim) | posterior | 1.90 mm back |
| Supraorbital ridges | more robust / prominent | qualitative, consistent |
| Forehead above brow | slopes posteriorly | ≈ +3.7° inclination |
Male-female differences in the upper face (3D skeletal study)[8]
Brow-ridge volume is itself measurably dimorphic and is one of the traits forensic anthropologists score for sex; it also varies between populations.[9]
Sources
- Using data-driven phenotyping to investigate the impact of sex on 3D human facial surface morphology. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10335371
- Do Aesthetic Average Nasal Parameters Matter For Rhinoplasty in India? (cross-study nasal index & width comparisons). pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6848649/
- Anthropometric analysis of the external nose of Indonesian females (Rhinobase 3D reference values). exa.ai/library/publication/vfjw4q7zt1p
- The Ideal Nose - nasal projection, Goode ratio, nasofacial/nasomental angles (Rhinoplasty Archive). www.rhinoplastyarchive.com/articles/rhinoplasty-fundamentals/the-ideal-nose
- Role of AI in Determining Ideal Nasal Tip Projection in Diverse Populations. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11581758/
- Shaffer et al. (2016). A GWAS Identifies Five Loci Influencing Facial Morphology. (male noses ~4 mm larger; high heritability, many small-effect variants). pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3441666/
- Evaluation of interpupillary distance in the Turkish population (n≈756, by age/sex). pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4529256/
- Quantitative Analysis of Male Versus Female Frontal Bone and Orbital Skeletal Morphology. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12459598
- Shearer et al. (2012). Sexual dimorphism in human browridge volume (3D dry crania). pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22776689