  This paper shows that the $\pi$-calculus with implicit matching is no more
expressive than CCS$\gamma$, a variant of CCS in which the result of a
synchronisation of two actions is itself an action subject to relabelling or
restriction, rather than the silent action $\tau$. This is done by exhibiting a
compositional translation from the $\pi$-calculus with implicit matching to
CCS$\gamma$ that is valid up to strong barbed bisimilarity. The full
$\pi$-calculus can be similarly expressed in CCS$\gamma$ enriched with the
triggering operation of Meije. I also show that these results cannot be
recreated with CCS in the role of CCS$\gamma$, not even up to reduction
equivalence, and not even for the asynchronous $\pi$-calculus without
restriction or replication. Finally I observe that CCS cannot be encoded in the
$\pi$-calculus.
