As far as I can work out there is an error in the synonymy of Lasioglossum micheneri (Moure, 1956) http://www.gbif.org/species/1354510
GBIF lists two synonyms:
Chloralictus micheneri Moure, 1956
Homalictus micheneri Pauly, 1986
These are two very different species. Chloralictus micheneri Moure, 1956 is a Brazilian species described in Moure, J. S. (1956). Seis espécies novas de Chloralictus do sul do Brasil (Hymenopt.- Apoidea). Dusenia 7 (2): 107-117 (e.g., http://moure.cria.org.br/catalogue/catalogue/catalogue?id=18566 ) whereas Homalictus micheneri Pauly, 1986 is from New Guinea http://repository.naturalis.nl/document/148844 "Holotype. — ♀, Nouvelle-Guinee: Korifeigu, 22 km SE.Goroka, 1500 m, l.v.1959 ( C D . Michener) (BBMH). Paratypes. — Nouvelle-Guinee: Amok, 165 m, 6.U960, 2 ♂ (T.C Maa) (BBMH).
I think part of the problem is that both names have ended up in Lasioglossum which makes them homonyms, but this doesn't make them synonyms. I've not seen recent treatment of Homalictus micheneri Pauly, 1986 since its original description, so not sure what people think about this name today, but GBIF's page isn't correct.