A complete understanding of the spatio–temporal variation in phenotypic traits in natural populations requires a combination long–term field studies with experiments using captive animals. Field studies allow the formulation of realistic hypotheses, but have the disadvantage that they do not allow the complete control of many potential confounding variables. Studies with captive animals allow tests of hypotheses that cannot be examined in the field, but have the disadvantage that artificial environments may provoke abnormal behaviour. Long–term studies that follow simultaneously captive and wild bird populations are rare. In a study lasting several years, we show here the unexpected patterns that two populations with a similar breeding time in the wild have non–overlapping breeding times in outdoor aviaries, and that two wild populations separated by a short geographical distance show differences in the expression of natural behaviour in captivity. The experimental design used is exceptional in the sense that the captive populations were held at similar latitudes and altitudes as the wild populations. Our case study shows that studies with captive animals can lead to wrong conclusions if they are carried out without population field studies, and without knowledge of the natural habits and habitats of the species involved. To examine the reliability of experiments with captive animals, comparisons with findings from population field studies are essential.