Nope, that's f/32, not f/3.2. And yes I still consider the image to be display-worthy in spite of the fact that the legs aren't 100% in focus. The fur on the fangs is clearly visible and sharply focused, and it definitely has visual impact.
Howard, no I haven't changed my position on depth of field. I purposely didn't go into the whole circle of confusion thing precisely because there is some room for personal taste and print size and viewing distance of the print to alter the preferred circle of confusion value. That negates none of the value or correctness of what I said. As to the reference point for focal distance being the "center of the lens" that's kind of silly. With zoom lenses, (especially push-pull designs) the center of the lens moves significantly as the lens is zoomed, and with many prime lenses (the Canon 50/1.8 comes to mind) the entire optic group moves in and out as the lens is focused. I have never seen a lens with the nodal point/entrance pupil/center of the lens marked on the lens barrel, but even cheapo film cameras like the Canon Rebel TI have a mark on the body indicating the location of the film plane. The "center of the lens" is a moving target for measurement purposes; the film/sensor plane is not.
In practical terms the distinction is irrelevant, as the difference in DOF calculated from the "center of the lens" vs from the film plane is irrelevant in real-world circumstances; much less than the 1/3 stop aperture adjustment increments that most photographers are limited to, whatever CoC value you choose to use. IMO a factor that in the vast majority of shooting conditions is going to have zero effect on selected aperture isn't worth worrying about or nitpicking over.
IMO you're just trying to nitpick everything I say to make me look bad and you look good, and I'd appreciate it if you'd quit. You'd be doing yourself and everyone else here a favor if you did.