# 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. *Figure: 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.* Three landmarks run down the nose: bridge root, tip, base. ## Nose *Figure: 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.* Reported nose lengths differ by population and by which landmarks are used. 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] > **The one table to distrust.** An earlier draft carried a multicentre CT table whose sample and landmark definitions could not be traced to any source. It has been removed; use the cited table above instead. ### 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 *Figure: 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.* Interorbital distance by age group (Turkish cohort). 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] > **Correction from the draft.** The original IPD table listed “West African 59.5-66.1 mm / European ~63 mm” with no source and a range that spans the whole adult distribution; it has been removed. The table above is one Turkish cohort. The cited paper also quotes an Iranian cohort (61.1 ± 3.5 mm in women, 63.6 ± 3.9 mm in men) and notes that other studies find males higher than females,[7] but it gives no continental ranges, so none are stated here. Treat the table as one population’s reference and drive eye spacing from the individual and age. ## Brow & forehead *Figure: 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.* Compared with women, male glabella sits forward and down and the orbital rim back. 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 1. Using data-driven phenotyping to investigate the impact of sex on 3D human facial surface morphology. 2. Do Aesthetic Average Nasal Parameters Matter For Rhinoplasty in India? (cross-study nasal index & width comparisons). 3. Anthropometric analysis of the external nose of Indonesian females (Rhinobase 3D reference values). 4. The Ideal Nose - nasal projection, Goode ratio, nasofacial/nasomental angles (Rhinoplasty Archive). 5. Role of AI in Determining Ideal Nasal Tip Projection in Diverse Populations. 6. Shaffer et al. (2016). *A GWAS Identifies Five Loci Influencing Facial Morphology.* (male noses ~4 mm larger; high heritability, many small-effect variants). 7. Evaluation of interpupillary distance in the Turkish population (n≈756, by age/sex). 8. Quantitative Analysis of Male Versus Female Frontal Bone and Orbital Skeletal Morphology. 9. Shearer et al. (2012). *Sexual dimorphism in human browridge volume* (3D dry crania). --- First published 2026-10-02, updated 2026-10-18. Web page: https://www.mackenziebowes.com/research/facial-character-parameters/nose-eyes-brow Part of [Facial parameters for character work: the dials that carry a face, and how far they travel](https://www.mackenziebowes.com/research/facial-character-parameters).