The validity of the assumption, that laboratory estimates of heritabil
ities will tend to overestimate natural heritabilities, due to a reduc
tion in environmental variability and thus the phenotypic variance of
traits, is examined. One hundred sixty-five field estimates of narrow
sense heritabilities derived from the literature are compared with 189
estimates from laboratory studies on wild, outbred animal populations
derived from the data set of Mousseau and Roff. The results indicate
that 84% of field heritabilities are significantly different from zero
and that for morphological, behavioral, and life-history traits there
are no significant differences between laboratory and field estimates
of heritability. Unexpectedly, mean heritabilities for morphological
and life-history traits are actually higher in the field than in the l
ab. Twenty-two cases were found for which both laboratory and natural
heritabilities had been estimated on the same traits. For this subset
of the data, laboratory heritabilities tended to be higher than field
estimates, but the difference was not significant. Also, the correlati
on between lab and field estimates was high (r = 0.6, P < 0.001), and
the regression slope did not differ significantly from one. The major
implications of this study are that laboratory estimates of heritabili
ty should generally provide reasonable estimations of both the magnitu
de and the significance of heritabilities in nature.