We argue that the gapping-like constructions in the nominal domain (nominal gapping: NG) and regular gapping constructions seen in clauses (verbal gapping: VG) show quite different properties. First, VG obeys the Coordination Constraint but NG does not. Second, in terms of locality, NG allows free embedding but VG does not. Third, the scope properties exhibited in VG are not seen in NG. Fourth, socalled cross-conjunct binding, which is sometimes taken as strong evidence for the across-the-board movement analysis of VG, is not seen in NG in the same way as in VG, even in the environments where locality requirements for across-the-board movement are met. We argue that the derivation of NG does not involve across-the-board movement. Instead, NG is best analyzed as involving ellipsis.