Insights · Lips · Measurement

Mouth width : alar base width

Width of the mouth (commissure to commissure) as a multiple of nose width.

Confidence
Tier A · tight interval
Unit
ratio (dimensionless)
Landmarks
ch_R, ch_L, al_R, al_L
CI floor
± 0.04
dist(ch_R, ch_L) / alarWidth
Measure yours
Illustration · on your scan the same lines are drawn on your own photo

How to read it

Below the mean

the mouth is narrow relative to the nose for the reference group, or the nose is comparatively wide; the ratio does not distinguish which.

Near the mean

mouth width relative to nose width sits close to the reference mean.

Above the mean

the mouth is wide relative to the nose for the reference group.

The neoclassical claim: Mouth width = 1.5 × nose width (naso-oral canon)

Only 8.7% of a Southern Chinese sample conformed. Population means range from ~1.3 (African reference) to ~1.6 (NA White reference).

Conformity in published samples: east asian 9%

Reference values by population

Reference populationFemale (mean ± SD)Male (mean ± SD)nSource
North American White1.599 ± 0.1511.562 ± 0.152326Farkas 1994/2005 (NA White young adults) prov.
East Asian1.296 ± 0.1241.273 ± 0.114618Farkas 2005 (Chinese/Japanese/Vietnamese/Thai pooled); Jayaratne 2012 (Southern Chinese, n=103) prov.
South Asian1.418 ± 0.1381.397 ± 0.136210Farkas 2005 (Indian); Metgudmath 2022 prov.
African / African diaspora1.325 ± 0.1261.299 ± 0.12300Farkas 2005 (African-American, Zulu, Angolan) prov.
Middle Eastern1.508 ± 0.1441.479 ± 0.141348Farkas 2005 (Turkish, Iranian, Egyptian); Al-Sebaei 2015 (Saudi, n=168) prov.
Hispanic / Latino1.412 ± 0.1391.392 ± 0.137120Farkas 2005 (Mexican-American) prov.
Not specified — show pooled1.42 ± 0.1891.394 ± 0.1823922Unweighted pool of the six groups above prov.
Where these numbers come from

Transcribed from the cited anthropometric literature; SDs of ratios are propagated conservatively (independence assumed). Entries marked prov. await line-by-line audit against the primary tables — see the norm provenance note.

Why every value has an error bar

Every value Canthion reports carries a 1σ uncertainty propagated from MediaPipe Face Mesh's published accuracy (3.96% of inter-ocular distance mean absolute error per landmark, Kartynnik 2019). For a typical 300 px inter-pupil photo that is ≈12 px per landmark, which is why small ratios and angles get wide intervals. A number without an interval is a number pretending to be more precise than it is.

References
  • Farkas, Hreczko, Kolar & Munro (1985). Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg 75(3):328–338. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3883374/
  • Jayaratne, Deutsch, McGrath & Zwahlen (2012). Are Neoclassical Canons Valid for Southern Chinese Faces? PLoS ONE 7(12):e52593. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052593
  • Farkas, Katic & Forrest (2005). International Anthropometric Study of Facial Morphology in Various Ethnic Groups/Races. J Craniofac Surg 16(4):615–646. doi.org/10.1097/01.SCS.0000171847.58031.9E

Related: how bone-level measurements are taken from a photo · methodology · all insights